When a person sustains an injury due to an accident—be it a car crash, slip and fall, or defective product—the question of who is at fault often comes into play. The amount of responsibility each party holds for the incident can significantly influence the outcome of a personal injury lawsuit. This is where the notion of comparative negligence becomes essential, especially in California, which applies a comparative negligence rule.
Comprehending how comparative negligence functions is critical for someone involved in a personal injury claim in California. In this article, we will talk about comparative negligence and its function in personal injury cases, and how it determines the compensation a plaintiff may receive, even if they share some of the blame for the accident.

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a legal principle applied to allocate fault between the parties engaged in an accident or injury. It examines the degree to which each party is responsible for causing the injury and accident. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff's compensation will be reduced by the percentage of fault designated to them.
In states like California that follow the comparative negligence system, the court evaluates the degree of fault for each party involved. The scope of damages a plaintiff can recover depends on the amount of responsibility attributed to each party. In California, even if the plaintiff is mostly at fault for the incident, they can still recover some compensation.

The Shift to Comparative Negligence in California

California's transition to comparative negligence law originates from the landmark case Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), which moved the state away from the older contributory negligence rule. Prior to Li v. Yellow Cab Co., California used the contributory negligence doctrine, which prevented a plaintiff from recovering any compensation if they were found even slightly at fault for the accident. Under this rule, even if the plaintiff was only 1% responsible for the accident, they would be denied any recovery for their injuries.
The California Supreme Court, however, ruled that the contributory negligence rule was overly punitive and unfair. As a result, the court adopted a comparative negligence rule. This allows complainants to recover damages even if they bear some responsibility for the accident. This ruling marked a shift toward fairness in personal injury cases, allowing plaintiffs to receive compensation even if they are primarily at fault.

How Does Comparative Negligence Work in California?

In California, when an accident occurs, the court decides on the degree of fault for all parties involved. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced according to their assigned percentage of fault. Even if the plaintiff is largely responsible for the incident, they can still recover damages, but the amount will be lowered based on their share of responsibility. For example, if the jury finds the plaintiff 20% at fault for a $100,000 car accident, they will recover $80,000.
This system differs from modified comparative negligence laws in other states, where plaintiffs can only recover if they are less than 50% or 51% at fault. In such states, plaintiffs who are more than 50% responsible for the incident are not eligible for compensation. California's comparative negligence law, however, allows plaintiffs to recover, regardless of the level of fault they share.

Key Components of Comparative Negligence in Personal Injury Cases

To apply comparative negligence in a personal injury case, certain factors must be proven:

Duty of Care
The defendant should owe a duty of care to the complainant. This duty could involve obeying traffic laws, maintaining safe premises, or ensuring product safety. If the defendant fails in this duty, their actions or failure to act may be considered negligent.

Breach of Duty
Once a duty of care is decided, the complainant must prove that the defendant breached that duty. For example, a driver running a red light or a business owner failing to clean up a spill could be considered a breach of duty. The defendant's actions must be shown to be negligent.

Causation
The defendant's breach of duty must directly cause the plaintiff's injuries. There must be a clear link between the defendant's negligence and the plaintiff's harm. If another factor, such as a third party or environmental conditions, caused the injury, the defendant may not be held responsible.

Damages
Ultimately, the plaintiff must prove that they sustained actual damages due to the defendant's negligence. These damages could take into account medical expenses, lost wages, pain, and distress, and other relevant costs. If the plaintiff proves these elements, they may be entitled to compensation, although their recovery will be reduced by their portion of fault.

Types of Personal Injury Cases Affected by Comparative Negligence

California's comparative negligence law applies to a broad range of personal injury cases. Here are a few examples where this principle is frequently applied:

Car Accidents
Car accidents often involve multiple parties who may share responsibility for the crash. For example, one driver might be speeding, while the other might fail to yield the right of way. The jury will determine the level of fault for each party, and the plaintiff's recovery will be reduced by their percentage of fault.

Premises Liability
Property owners are required to keep their premises secure for visitors. If a person slips and falls due to a wet floor in a shop, the owner may be responsible for the unsafe condition. However, if the injured person was not paying attention or was distracted, they may share some of the fault. In such cases, comparative negligence will determine how much the plaintiff is responsible for the accident, reducing their compensation accordingly.

Product Liability
In product liability cases, manufacturers and sellers are responsible for guaranteeing that their products are risk-free. However, if the consumer misuses the product or ignores safety instructions, they may bear some responsibility for the injury. The damages awarded will be reduced in accordance with the plaintiff's level of fault.

Workplace Injuries
Even in workplace injury cases, where workers' compensation laws typically apply, comparative negligence may come into play. For example, if an employee is injured because of unsafe working conditions but also fails to follow safety procedures, their compensation may be reduced based on their share of fault.

Joint and Several Liability

California also follows the joint and several liability principles in cases involving multiple responsible parties. This means that if two or more defendants are found liable for the plaintiff's injuries, the complainant can recover the full amount of damages from any of the defendants, notwithstanding their share of fault. The defendant who pays more than their share of damages can seek reimbursement from other parties.
For instance, if two drivers cause an accident and the jury finds that one is 60% at fault and the other 40%, the plaintiff can recover the entire amount from either driver. The driver who pays the full amount can then pursue reimbursement from the other driver for their portion.

Why You Need a Personal Injury Lawyer in California

Understanding the intricacies of comparative negligence in California can be difficult, particularly when multiple parties are involved, or fault is disputed. This is where a personal injury lawyer in California can be invaluable. An accomplished attorney can help you understand how comparative negligence affects your case, gather the necessary evidence to establish the defendant's fault, and ensure that your compensation is maximized, even if you share some responsibility.
At Bulldog Law, our team of experienced attorneys is dedicated to advocating for California's personal injury victims' rights. Whether you're dealing with a car accident, slip and fall, or other personal injury case, we are here to help you navigate the complexities of comparative negligence and secure the best possible outcome for your case.