Pure Comparative Negligence in California
California is a pure comparative negligence state. Here’s everything you need to know about California pure comparative negligence.
Pure comparative negligence states allow plaintiffs to recover damages in a case, even if they are somewhat at fault. Unlike other states with different negligence jurisdictions, California bases awards on the percentage of fault a party has in a case.
What does it mean to be a pure comparative negligence state?
A pure comparative negligence state, such as California, allows both parties involved in a case to collect damages. Thus, if an injured party is 90% at fault for an accident, he or she would still be allowed to collect damages. Unlike pure comparative negligence states, modified comparative negligence states cap the amount of fault at 50%. That being said, courts in pure comparative negligence states will still reduce a plaintiff’s award based on how much they were at fault. For example, courts that find a plaintiff to be 10% at fault in an accident that has a $100,000 verdict will cap what he or she is able to receive at $90,000 (100,000 – [100,000 x 0.10]). Essentially, the more at fault the plaintiff is, the smaller his or her recovery amount will be.
Related: Benefits of Settling a Personal Injury Case
Can pure comparative negligence jurisdictions award plaintiffs that are more than 50% at fault?
Pure negligence jurisdictions allow plaintiffs to recover damages even if they have some fault in the case. Additionally, this rule applies in cases where plaintiffs are even more at fault (percentage-wise) than the defendant. For instance, if two parties are involved in a car accident and a jury rules one plaintiff to be 60% at fault while the other is 40% at fault, the party that is 60% at fault will still be able to recover compensation so long as the jury returns a verdict in his or her favor. This rule would continue to apply even if the percentages had extremely large discrepancies. For example, if a plaintiff is 99% at fault and the defendant is 1% at fault, the plaintiff can still be awarded 1% from the defendant. However, the award would be limited to only 1%, as awards are proportional to the amount each party is at fault. Thus, pure comparative negligence jurisdictions can award plaintiffs that are more than 50% at fault.
What are the different types of negligence doctrines?
Comparative negligence most commonly applies to personal injury cases. This type of negligence doctrine deals with how much at fault a plaintiff and defendant are in a particular case.
Related: How to Find a Good Personal Injury Attorney In California
Some comparative negligence states bar plaintiffs from recovery if their degree of fault exceeds a certain level. However, in most states, including California, at least partial recovery is allowed in cases where both parties are at least somewhat at fault.
Comparative fault
Comparative fault holds both the plaintiff and defendant accountable for how much damage they brought to a case. Thus, the percentage of fault that a plaintiff has in a case will be eliminated for his or her compensation award by courts. Modified comparative negligence states do not allow plaintiffs to be more than 49-51% responsible in a case. If they are, the courts will not allow said plaintiff to have rights to recover compensation. Pure comparative negligence states, such as California, allow plaintiffs to recover compensation regardless of their involvement. Thus, the plaintiff could still be entitled to recover 10% if they are 90% at fault.
Joint and several liabilities
Joint and several liabilities typically occur when there is more than one defendant at fault in a case. This rule allows plaintiffs to recover their award compensation from more than one liable defendant. Such cases can lead to lawsuits within lawsuits, where defendants can file against each other for contributory negligence. Every defendant will be obligated to pay a percentage of the award to the plaintiff.
Contributory negligence
Contributory negligence is the least common form of negligence. In contributory negligence states, plaintiffs that have any contribution to an accident are not allowed to receive compensation. Thus, a plaintiff that is only 2% at fault for an accident would not have any rights towards compensation.
Contact Us
If you have any more questions about California pure comparative negligence, contact us. Get your free consultation with one of our experienced Personal Injury Attorneys in California today!