What Is California's Comparative Negligence Law?
California’s comparative negligence law divides the fault and uses that ratio to determine the damages a plaintiff can receive (even if they are more than 50% at fault). In law cases involving comparative negligence, the defendant makes a claim that the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to their injuries and the jury decides what percentage of fault to assign to each party. This law can potentially reduce the injury party’s award.
- California follows the pure comparative negligence rule.
- You can recover damages in cases even if you are partially at fault.
- If you and the defendant are found negligent, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party.
- The total compensation awarded to you is reduced by your percentage of fault.
- If you are 99% at fault, you can still receive 1% of the total-case value.
California's Pure Comparative Negligence Law Explained
According to the California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 405, if the defendant claims that the plaintiff was partially responsible for the accident, they must prove that the plaintiff was also negligent and that their negligence contributed to their injuries. If the defendant can convince the jury, the jury then determines how much fault to assign to the plaintiff and reduces their award by that amount. Additionally, the total responsibility assigned among all defendants and plaintiffs must equal 100%.
California uses this standard in determining negligence liability, as outlined in California Civil Code Section 1714. The following injury cases may be affected by this law:
- Car accidents
- Motorcycle accidents
- Truck accidents
- Product liability accidents
- Slip and fall accidents
- Other California personal injury cases
This progressive law allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially to blame for the accident. So theoretically, you could be 99% responsible for an accident and still receive 1% of the damages requested, according to California Civil Code Section 1714.
Example Case - 30% Responsible
Attorney Celine Cutter represented a cyclist in Sonoma County who suffered a broken jaw and a mild traumatic brain injury after she rode her bike through a large pothole, which they proved at trial was a “dangerous condition of public property.”
The jury awarded the plaintiff $1.895 million. Because the jury found the plaintiff 30 percent responsible, the award is reduced by 30 percent to around $1.33 million.
- $1,895,000 (jury award to plaintiff) – $568,500 (30% fault of plaintiff) = $1,326,500 (final award to plaintiff)
You Can Still Recover if You Were Primarily at Fault for an Accident.
The pure aspect of comparative negligence in California means that you can recover compensation even if you hold most of the blame for an accident. So, if you can show that the plaintiff was 1% responsible and you were 99% at fault, you can still receive 1% of your total-case value in a court decision against the defendant.
Who determines the percentage of fault in California injury cases?
Typically the jury, following the judge’s instructions, determines the ratio of responsibility for the plaintiff and defendant. In some cases, the judge determines the percentage of fault.
In practice, a defendant makes a claim against a plaintiff, saying they contributed to the accident as well. The jury then receives specific instructions on assigning fault under California’s comparative negligence rules and does so to the best of their ability.
Under California Civil Jury Instructions No. 405, the jury follows specific instructions to assign blame. According to the State Bar of California, if you are an accident victim and share partial responsibility, the California courts base the assignment of negligence on four elements:
- Duty
- Breach of Duty
- Causation
- Damages
The jury should not assign blame unless there is significant evidence to back up the claim. The percentage of all blame assigned must total 100%. Both the defendant and plaintiff may be assigned a percentage of the blame.
Here is an example of how this plays out in practice: If your total case value is $100,000 and the jury assigns you 20% responsibility, you will only receive $80,000.
How does comparative negligence work with multiple responsible parties?
Comparative negligence works similarly even if there are multiple responsible parties. The judge and jury follow the same process to assign fault and use it to award a percentage of the total-case value. The term “joint and several” means that damages can be recovered from either or both parties at fault. For example, if the plaintiff can collect the full amount of damages from either responsible party, the defendants can then file their own claims against one another for the amount awarded in damages.
Joint and several liability is for economic damages only, as explained in California Civil Code Section 1431. According to California Civil Code Section 1431.2, non-economic damages must be recovered separately from each individual defendant for their apportioned percentage of responsibility for those specific types of damages.
Contact Cutter Law P.C. Today for Help With Your Personal Injury Case
If you recently suffered personal injuries and were partially at fault in the accident, it’s essential to understand your options. You can still recover compensation thanks to California’s comparative negligence laws.
Let our attorneys help you determine the factors around your accident and minimize the percentage of fault assigned to you. By building evidence, you can counter excessive claims by the defendants and capitalize on the state’s comparative negligence doctrine to maximize your settlement.
Contact us today to learn more about how we can help if you were partially responsible for your injury accident.
California has a two-year statute of limitations that applies to the vast majority of personal injury lawsuits.
California allows you to recover some compensation as long as your share of the fault for the accident is less than 100 percent.
The general rule in California is that most components of personal injury settlements are not taxable income.