Accidents happen, and when they involve injuries, determining who is responsible and the extent of compensation can be complex. This complexity often stems from the legal doctrine of comparative fault, a system that assigns responsibility for an accident to all parties involved, rather than solely placing blame on one individual. Unlike contributory negligence, which could completely bar a plaintiff from recovery even if they were only slightly at fault, comparative fault allows for a more nuanced assessment of liability. Understanding comparative fault is crucial for anyone involved in a personal injury claim, whether as a plaintiff or defendant, as it directly influences the amount of compensation awarded. This article will explore the different types of comparative fault systems, how they impact personal injury claims, and strategies for navigating the legal landscape surrounding this complex issue.
Key Insights: Understanding Comparative Fault
- Comparative fault significantly impacts personal injury settlements: Your share of the blame directly reduces the compensation you receive.
- Jurisdictions vary widely in their approach to comparative fault: Some allow partial recovery even if you’re mostly at fault (pure comparative negligence), while others have thresholds (like 50% or 51%) above which you receive nothing (modified comparative negligence).
- Building a strong case requires meticulous evidence gathering: Thoroughly document your injuries, gather witness statements, and preserve any relevant physical evidence.
- Legal representation is crucial: An experienced attorney can guide you through the complex legal process, negotiate with insurance companies, and help minimize the impact of comparative fault on your claim.
- Understanding your jurisdiction’s specific laws is essential: The rules governing comparative negligence differ significantly from state to state, directly impacting your potential recovery.
1. Introduction: What is Comparative Fault?
Comparative fault is a legal doctrine used in personal injury cases to determine the extent of liability for each party involved in an accident. Unlike the older system of contributory negligence, which completely barred recovery if the plaintiff was even slightly at fault, comparative fault allocates responsibility based on the percentage of fault attributable to each individual. This more equitable approach allows injured parties to recover some compensation even if they contributed to the accident, although the amount of compensation is reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. The precise application of comparative fault varies considerably depending on jurisdiction, with different states adopting different variations of the system.
Defining Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence, often used interchangeably with comparative fault, is a legal principle that apportions responsibility for damages in a personal injury case based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party. It’s a departure from the older, stricter doctrine of contributory negligence, which completely barred recovery for a plaintiff if they were even slightly at fault. Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can still recover damages, even if they were partially at fault, but their recovery will be reduced proportionately to their degree of negligence. This means that if a plaintiff is found 20% at fault, their damage award will be reduced by 20%.
Distinguishing Comparative Fault from Contributory Negligence
Comparative fault and contributory negligence are two distinct legal doctrines that impact how responsibility is assigned and compensation awarded in personal injury cases. Contributory negligence, a more traditional approach, holds that if a plaintiff is even slightly at fault for their injuries, they are barred from recovering any compensation from the defendant, regardless of the defendant’s degree of fault. This all-or-nothing approach often led to unfair outcomes. Comparative fault, in contrast, is a more nuanced system. It acknowledges that accidents often involve multiple parties sharing responsibility. It apportions fault based on the percentage of negligence each party contributed to the accident. This allows plaintiffs to recover some compensation, even if they were partially at fault, with the amount reduced proportionally to their share of the blame.
2. Types of Comparative Fault Systems
Comparative fault systems aren’t uniform across all jurisdictions. They fall into several categories, each with distinct implications for compensation. A pure comparative negligence system allows recovery even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. For example, if a plaintiff is 80% at fault, they can still recover 20% of their damages. Modified comparative negligence systems, however, impose a threshold. The most common is the 50% rule, where a plaintiff can recover only if their fault is less than 50%. If their fault equals or exceeds 50%, recovery is barred. A less common variation is the 51% rule, where recovery is barred if the plaintiff’s fault is 51% or more. The specific rules in place significantly affect the outcome of a personal injury case, highlighting the importance of understanding the applicable jurisdiction’s laws.
Pure Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence represents the most straightforward approach to allocating fault in personal injury cases. Under this system, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced in direct proportion to their percentage of fault. This means that regardless of how much at fault the plaintiff is, they can still receive some compensation. For example, if a plaintiff suffers $100,000 in damages and is found 40% responsible for the accident, they would recover $60,000 ($100,000 x 0.60). Even if the plaintiff is deemed mostly at fault, they are still entitled to a portion of the damages. This contrasts sharply with modified comparative negligence systems, which have thresholds that can entirely bar recovery. The simplicity of pure comparative negligence makes it relatively easy to understand and apply, although the outcome may seem unfair in cases where the plaintiff is significantly more at fault than the defendant.
Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Rule and 51% Rule)
Modified comparative negligence systems differ from pure comparative negligence by introducing a threshold that determines whether a plaintiff can recover any damages. The most common variations are the 50% rule and the 51% rule. Under the 50% rule, a plaintiff can recover damages only if their percentage of fault is less than 50%. If their fault is equal to or greater than 50%, their claim is completely barred. The 51% rule functions similarly, but the threshold is 51%. In this scenario, a plaintiff can recover damages only if their fault is 50% or less. This means that even a small difference in fault percentage can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case. For example, a plaintiff found 49% at fault under a 50% rule would recover damages, while a plaintiff found 51% at fault would not.
3. How Comparative Fault Impacts Personal Injury Claims
Comparative fault significantly impacts the compensation awarded in personal injury claims. The most direct consequence is a reduction in damages based on the plaintiff’s assigned percentage of fault. If a plaintiff is found 30% at fault, their awarded damages will be reduced by 30%. This reduction can drastically affect the overall settlement amount, potentially leaving the plaintiff with significantly less than the full extent of their medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering. Beyond the simple reduction, comparative fault can also lead to a complete bar to recovery in modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, especially under the 50% or 51% rules. In such cases, even minor contributions to the accident by the plaintiff can result in them receiving no compensation whatsoever.
Reduction in Damages
In comparative fault jurisdictions, a plaintiff’s percentage of fault directly reduces the amount of damages they can recover. This reduction is calculated proportionally. If a court determines that a plaintiff’s total damages are $100,000, and the plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault, their recoverable damages are reduced by 20%. This results in a net recovery of $80,000 ($100,000 – ($100,000 x 0.20)). This calculation applies regardless of the defendant’s degree of fault; the plaintiff’s percentage of fault solely determines the reduction. The calculation is straightforward, but the impact on the plaintiff’s final recovery can be substantial, potentially leaving them responsible for a significant portion of their medical expenses, lost wages, and other related costs.
Complete Bar to Recovery
In modified comparative negligence systems, a plaintiff’s significant contribution to the accident can result in a complete bar to recovery. This typically occurs when the plaintiff’s percentage of fault surpasses a certain threshold, usually 50% or 51%, depending on the jurisdiction. Under the 50% rule, for instance, if a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault, they will receive no compensation, regardless of the defendant’s negligence. Similarly, the 51% rule prevents recovery if the plaintiff’s fault is 51% or greater. This “all-or-nothing” outcome contrasts sharply with pure comparative negligence, where even a highly at-fault plaintiff can receive partial compensation. The existence of this threshold significantly raises the stakes for plaintiffs in modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, emphasizing the critical importance of establishing a defendant’s substantial fault.
4. Determining Percentage of Fault
Determining the percentage of fault for each party involved in an accident is a crucial step in comparative fault cases. This process relies heavily on evidence presented to the court, including witness testimonies, police reports, accident reconstruction analyses, and expert opinions. These elements help paint a picture of the events leading up to the accident, highlighting each party’s actions and inactions. The weight given to different pieces of evidence varies depending on their credibility and relevance to the specific circumstances of the case. For example, a dashcam video might carry more weight than a witness’s recollection of events.
Role of Evidence and Expert Testimony
The determination of fault in comparative negligence cases relies heavily on the evidence presented. This evidence can take various forms, including witness statements, police reports, and expert analyses. Witness statements provide firsthand accounts of the events leading up to and including the accident. While valuable, their reliability can be affected by factors such as memory biases or the witness’s relationship to the parties involved. Police reports offer an official record of the incident, typically including details like the location, time, and initial observations. However, these reports may not contain comprehensive details and might reflect only a snapshot of the situation. Expert testimony from fields such as accident reconstruction or biomechanics can be crucial in complex cases. These experts can analyze physical evidence and provide opinions on the sequence of events and the contributing factors, offering a deeper understanding of the accident’s causes.
Jury’s Role in Fault Allocation
In many jurisdictions, the jury plays a pivotal role in determining the percentage of fault assigned to each party in a comparative negligence case. This responsibility requires careful consideration of all the evidence presented during the trial. The jury weighs witness testimonies, examines physical evidence, and assesses the credibility and expertise of witnesses, including expert testimony. They are instructed to consider the actions and inactions of each party leading up to the accident, evaluating whether those actions fell below the standard of reasonable care. The jury’s task is to determine the proportional contribution of each party’s negligence to the overall accident, assigning a percentage of fault accordingly.
5. Strategies for Minimizing the Impact of Comparative Fault
Minimizing the impact of comparative fault on a personal injury claim requires a proactive and strategic approach. Building a strong case starts with meticulous evidence gathering. This includes thoroughly documenting injuries, medical treatments, and lost wages. Securing witness statements and preserving any relevant physical evidence, such as photos or videos of the accident scene, is crucial. Furthermore, engaging experienced legal counsel is vital. An attorney can guide you through the legal process, ensuring that all necessary evidence is gathered and presented effectively. They can also help assess the strength of your case and advise on potential strategies to minimize the allocation of fault to you.
Building a Strong Case
Constructing a robust personal injury claim, particularly in cases involving comparative fault, necessitates meticulous evidence gathering. This involves documenting all aspects of the accident and its aftermath, including detailed medical records, police reports, witness statements, and photographic or video evidence of the accident scene and injuries. The more comprehensive the evidence, the stronger the plaintiff’s position in negotiating a settlement or presenting their case in court. Furthermore, the quality of legal representation significantly influences the outcome. An experienced attorney can effectively navigate the complexities of comparative fault, identify and utilize key evidence, and present a compelling case that minimizes the plaintiff’s assigned percentage of fault. Their expertise in presenting evidence, understanding applicable laws, and negotiating settlements is invaluable.
Negotiating a Settlement
Negotiating a settlement is a common approach in personal injury cases involving comparative fault. Settlements offer several benefits, including potentially faster resolution than going to trial and avoiding the uncertainties associated with litigation. They can also provide a degree of certainty regarding the compensation amount, albeit potentially less than a full court award. However, negotiating a settlement in comparative fault cases presents unique challenges. The plaintiff’s percentage of fault directly impacts the settlement amount, and accurately assessing this percentage is crucial. Insurance companies often use the plaintiff’s fault to reduce their offer, making it vital for plaintiffs to have a strong understanding of their case and to be represented by a skilled negotiator.
6. Comparative Fault in Different Types of Accidents
The principle of comparative fault applies across various accident types, although the specific application and determination of fault percentages can vary depending on the circumstances. In car accidents, comparative fault is frequently assessed based on factors such as speed, right-of-way violations, and adherence to traffic laws. Both drivers can be found partially at fault, leading to a reduction in damages for the injured party. Premises liability cases, involving slip-and-falls or other accidents on someone else’s property, also involve comparative fault. A plaintiff’s actions, such as failing to notice a hazard, might contribute to their injuries, leading to a reduction in their recovery. Medical malpractice cases involve a more complex assessment of comparative fault, considering the patient’s actions and the doctor’s negligence. The plaintiff’s failure to follow post-operative instructions, for example, could contribute to their damages.
Car Accidents
Car accidents frequently involve scenarios where both drivers share responsibility, making comparative fault a common feature in these cases. For instance, if one driver runs a red light and collides with another driver who was speeding, both drivers could be deemed partially at fault. The percentage of fault assigned to each driver would depend on the specific circumstances of the accident, including the severity of each driver’s violation. Factors such as speed, visibility, and adherence to traffic laws are carefully considered. A driver who was exceeding the speed limit and failed to brake in time might be assigned a higher percentage of fault compared to a driver who simply ran a yellow light. The allocation of fault directly impacts the amount of compensation each party can recover. If both drivers are found partially at fault, both could receive reduced compensation.
Premises Liability Cases
Premises liability cases, often involving slip-and-fall accidents, frequently involve the application of comparative fault. The property owner’s negligence, such as failing to maintain a safe environment, is weighed against the plaintiff’s actions. If a plaintiff fails to exercise reasonable care, such as walking while distracted or ignoring obvious hazards, their actions can contribute to their injuries. For example, if a property owner fails to clear a sidewalk of ice and a pedestrian slips and falls, the property owner might be partially at fault for not maintaining a safe environment. However, if the pedestrian was rushing and not paying attention to their surroundings, they may also bear some responsibility for the fall. The court would assess the degree of fault for both parties, resulting in a proportionate reduction of damages for the injured party. The allocation of fault depends heavily on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Medical Malpractice Cases
Medical malpractice cases present unique challenges when applying comparative fault. While the doctor’s negligence is a central issue, the patient’s actions and compliance with medical advice can also influence the outcome. A patient’s failure to follow post-operative instructions or to disclose relevant medical history could be considered contributory negligence, reducing their potential recovery. For example, if a patient fails to take prescribed medication as directed, contributing to a negative outcome, their fault might be considered. However, the assessment of comparative fault in medical malpractice is complex, requiring expert medical testimony to determine the causal link between the patient’s actions and the negative outcome. This contrasts with simpler accident scenarios, where the causal link is often more readily apparent.
7. The Role of Insurance Companies
Insurance companies play a significant role in personal injury cases involving comparative fault. They are typically responsible for handling claims and negotiating settlements on behalf of their insured parties. The existence of comparative fault directly impacts the insurance company’s liability. If their insured is found partially at fault, the insurance company’s payout is reduced proportionally. This means that if their insured is found 40% at fault, the insurance company would only be responsible for 60% of the awarded damages. Insurance policies often contain clauses that address comparative negligence, outlining how liability is allocated when multiple parties share responsibility for an accident. Understanding these clauses is critical for both plaintiffs and defendants in negotiating a fair settlement.
Insurance Coverage and Liability
Insurance policies typically address comparative fault, often outlining how liability is shared when multiple parties are involved in an accident. These policies usually specify that coverage is reduced proportionally to the insured’s percentage of fault. For example, if an insured driver is found 20% at fault in a car accident, their insurance company will only pay 80% of the damages awarded to the other party. The exact wording and interpretation of these clauses can vary between insurance providers and policies. Therefore, understanding the specifics of your own insurance policy, and that of the other party involved, is crucial during a claim. This understanding allows for more accurate assessments of potential liability and facilitates more effective negotiation during settlement discussions.
Negotiating with Insurance Adjusters
Interacting with insurance adjusters during a personal injury claim requires a strategic approach, particularly when comparative fault is involved. Adjusters are trained negotiators representing the insurance company’s interests, aiming to minimize payouts. It is essential to remain calm and professional throughout all communications. Before any contact, gather all relevant documentation, including medical records, police reports, and witness statements. Clearly and concisely explain the events leading to the accident, focusing on the other party’s negligence and your injuries. It is crucial to avoid admitting fault or making statements that could be misinterpreted as accepting responsibility. If the adjuster attempts to minimize the extent of your injuries or assign a high percentage of fault to you, calmly and confidently present your evidence.
8. Seeking Legal Counsel
Navigating the complexities of comparative fault in a personal injury claim is significantly easier with the assistance of legal counsel. Attorneys specializing in personal injury law possess the expertise to analyze the specific circumstances of your case, assess the potential allocation of fault, and develop a strategy to maximize your compensation. They understand the nuances of evidence presentation, negotiation tactics, and the intricacies of relevant state laws. An attorney can help you gather and organize crucial evidence, ensuring that all relevant documentation is properly presented to support your claim. They can also effectively communicate with insurance adjusters and represent your interests during negotiations or court proceedings, protecting you from potentially unfair or disadvantageous settlements.
Understanding Your Rights
In personal injury cases involving comparative fault, understanding your legal rights is paramount. Knowing your rights ensures that you are not inadvertently compromising your claim or accepting an unfair settlement. Your rights include the right to seek compensation for medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and other damages resulting from the accident. However, the extent of this compensation is directly influenced by the allocation of fault. Understanding the specific laws in your jurisdiction, particularly concerning comparative negligence thresholds and the rules of evidence, is crucial for protecting your interests. This knowledge empowers you to make informed decisions and advocate for a fair outcome.
Building a Strong Case with Legal Assistance
Even when facing the complexities of comparative fault, legal representation can significantly strengthen a personal injury claim. An experienced attorney can help build a strong case by meticulously gathering and presenting evidence, ensuring that all relevant facts are presented in a clear and compelling manner. They can effectively challenge the allocation of fault, arguing for a lower percentage of responsibility for the plaintiff. This might involve presenting expert testimony to counter opposing claims or highlighting mitigating circumstances that reduce the plaintiff’s contribution to the accident. Furthermore, a lawyer’s negotiation skills can prove invaluable in securing a fair settlement, even when the plaintiff bears some degree of fault. Their expertise in legal strategy and courtroom procedure is crucial in achieving the best possible outcome.
9. Case Studies: Real-World Examples
Examining real-world case studies helps illustrate the practical application of comparative fault principles. Consider a car accident where Driver A runs a red light, colliding with Driver B, who was speeding. A court might find Driver A 60% at fault and Driver B 40% at fault. If Driver B’s damages totaled $100,000, they would recover $60,000 (60% of the damages caused by Driver A). In a premises liability case, a customer slips on a wet floor in a grocery store due to a spill that wasn’t immediately cleaned. If the store is deemed 70% at fault for the unsafe condition and the customer 30% for not paying sufficient attention, any compensation awarded would be reduced by 30%. In a medical malpractice case, a surgeon’s error during an operation leads to complications. If the patient’s failure to follow post-operative instructions contributed to the negative outcome, the court would consider the patient’s negligence when determining the damages. These examples highlight how fault is apportioned and how this apportionment affects the final compensation awarded.
Case Study 1: Car Accident
In a hypothetical car accident case, Plaintiff A was driving through an intersection when Defendant B ran a red light, causing a collision. Plaintiff A suffered significant injuries requiring extensive medical treatment and resulting in lost wages. While Defendant B’s negligence in running the red light was clear, evidence revealed that Plaintiff A was exceeding the speed limit prior to the intersection. After reviewing the evidence, including witness testimonies, police reports, and accident reconstruction analysis, the court determined that Defendant B was 70% at fault and Plaintiff A was 30% at fault. This allocation of fault directly impacted the compensation awarded to Plaintiff A. Assuming the total damages amounted to $100,000, Plaintiff A’s recovery was reduced by 30%, resulting in a net award of $70,000.
Case Study 2: Premises Liability
In a premises liability case, Plaintiff A slipped and fell on a wet floor in a retail store. The store owner, Defendant B, was found negligent for failing to promptly clean up a spilled liquid and adequately warn customers of the hazard. However, evidence indicated that Plaintiff A was distracted while walking through the store and did not pay attention to their surroundings. The court determined that Defendant B was 60% at fault for the unsafe condition of the premises, and Plaintiff A was 40% at fault for failing to exercise reasonable care. This allocation of fault influenced the damages awarded. If Plaintiff A’s medical bills and lost wages totaled $50,000, their recovery would be reduced by 40%, resulting in an award of $30,000.
10. Jurisdictional Variations in Comparative Fault Laws
Comparative fault laws vary significantly across different states and jurisdictions, leading to diverse outcomes in personal injury cases. Some states adhere to a pure comparative negligence system, where a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced proportionally to their degree of fault, regardless of the percentage. Other states operate under a modified comparative negligence system, typically employing either a 50% or 51% rule. Under these rules, a plaintiff’s recovery is barred if their percentage of fault equals or exceeds the threshold. The specific threshold and the overall approach to comparative fault can dramatically alter the outcome of a case. These variations highlight the importance of understanding the specific laws of the jurisdiction where the accident occurred when evaluating a personal injury claim.
State-Specific Laws and Regulations
The legal landscape of comparative negligence varies considerably from state to state. While many states have adopted some form of comparative negligence, replacing the harsher contributory negligence system, the specific rules governing the allocation of fault differ significantly. Some states utilize a pure comparative negligence system, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. Others operate under a modified system, with a threshold (typically 50% or 51%) determining whether the plaintiff can recover any damages. Even within the modified system, the precise percentage that bars recovery can vary. Furthermore, the specific factors considered when determining fault can also differ across jurisdictions. This state-to-state variation underscores the need to consult legal counsel familiar with the specific laws of the relevant jurisdiction.
Importance of Understanding Your Jurisdiction’s Laws
The outcome of a personal injury case significantly depends on the specific comparative fault laws of the jurisdiction where the accident occurred. Failing to understand these laws can have severe consequences, potentially leading to an undervalued settlement or even a complete bar to recovery. The type of comparative negligence system in place—pure, 50%, or 51%—directly impacts the amount of damages a plaintiff can recover. Even seemingly minor differences in the threshold for fault can have a substantial effect on the final outcome. Moreover, understanding the rules of evidence and the types of evidence considered admissible in court is critical for building a strong case. Therefore, thoroughly researching and understanding the relevant jurisdictional laws is essential before taking any legal action.
11. Conclusion: Navigating the complexities of Comparative Fault
Comparative fault significantly impacts personal injury claims, altering the amount of compensation awarded based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party. Understanding the nuances of pure versus modified comparative negligence systems, and the specific laws of your jurisdiction, is crucial for protecting your rights. The process of determining fault involves a careful consideration of evidence, including witness statements, police reports, and expert testimony. Building a strong case requires meticulous documentation, effective legal representation, and a strategic approach to negotiation. While settlements offer a potentially faster resolution, navigating the complexities of comparative fault necessitates careful consideration and professional legal guidance.
Key Points to Remember
Comparative fault significantly impacts personal injury claims by reducing damages awarded based on a plaintiff’s percentage of responsibility. Jurisdictions vary in their approach, employing pure comparative negligence or modified systems (50% or 51% rules). Understanding your jurisdiction’s specific laws is paramount. Building a strong case involves meticulously gathering evidence, including witness statements, police reports, and expert testimony. Effective legal representation is crucial for navigating the complexities of comparative fault, from evidence presentation to settlement negotiations. Insurance companies play a key role, and their payouts are directly affected by the apportionment of fault. Remember to document everything thoroughly, seek professional legal counsel, and understand your rights to protect your interests.
Next Steps for Claimants
After an accident resulting in injury, immediate steps are crucial for protecting your rights and building a strong personal injury claim. First, seek necessary medical attention to document your injuries thoroughly. Maintain detailed records of all medical treatments, therapy sessions, and related expenses. Next, gather as much evidence as possible. This includes taking photos and videos of the accident scene, obtaining police reports, and securing statements from any witnesses. Contact a personal injury attorney as soon as possible to discuss your case. An attorney can advise you on your rights, assist with evidence gathering, and represent your interests during negotiations or court proceedings. Remember, acting promptly increases the chances of a favorable outcome, especially in cases involving comparative fault.
What is the difference between contributory and comparative negligence?
Contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff from recovering damages if they are even slightly at fault. Comparative negligence, however, allows for partial recovery, with damages reduced proportionally to the plaintiff’s degree of fault.
What is the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence?
In pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their percentage of fault. Modified comparative negligence sets a threshold (usually 50% or 51%) – if the plaintiff’s fault exceeds this, they recover nothing.
How is the percentage of fault determined in a comparative negligence case?
The percentage of fault is determined by a judge or jury based on the evidence presented, including witness testimonies, police reports, expert analyses, and other relevant information.
Can I still recover damages if I’m mostly at fault?
It depends on your jurisdiction’s laws. Under pure comparative negligence, you can. Under modified comparative negligence (50% or 51% rule), you cannot recover if your fault percentage meets or exceeds the threshold.
What is the role of insurance companies in comparative negligence cases?
Insurance companies typically handle claims on behalf of their insured. The percentage of fault assigned to their insured directly impacts the amount they pay out in a claim.
Why is it important to seek legal counsel in a comparative negligence case?
An attorney can help gather evidence, navigate the legal complexities, negotiate with insurance companies, and ensure you receive a fair settlement, even if you bear some degree of responsibility for the accident.
What should I do immediately after an accident?
Seek medical attention, document your injuries, gather evidence (photos, witness statements), and contact a personal injury attorney.
Are comparative negligence laws the same in every state?
No, comparative negligence laws vary significantly from state to state. Some use pure comparative negligence, while others use modified systems with different thresholds.
