Many people worry that any mistake on their part ends an injury claim. In California, that is usually not true. California comparative negligence rules let a person recover damages even when they share some of the blame. Their recovery is then reduced by their own share of fault.
This article explains how negligence works, how fault is shared and why the details matter. It stays general, because each case turns on its own facts.
What Negligence Means
Negligence is the failure to use reasonable care. California’s general rule is in Civil Code section 1714. In short, everyone is responsible for harm caused by their lack of ordinary care.
A negligence claim usually has four parts. First, the other person owed a duty of care. Second, they breached that duty.
Third, the breach caused the harm. Fourth, the injured person suffered real damages. Each part needs proof.
How California Comparative Negligence Began
California once followed a harsh rule called contributory negligence. Under that rule, an injured person who was even slightly at fault could recover nothing. In 1975, the California Supreme Court changed that in Li v. Yellow Cab Co.
The court adopted a pure comparative fault system. Under this approach, each person’s share of fault is weighed. Then the injured person’s recovery goes down by their own percentage.
A Simple Hypothetical
Here is a purely hypothetical example. Suppose a jury finds total damages of a certain amount. It also finds the injured driver was partly at fault for speeding, while the other driver ran a red light.
Under California comparative negligence, the injured driver’s recovery drops by their share. So if they carry a small share of fault, they still recover most of their damages. Even a person mostly at fault may recover something under a pure system, though the amount would be small.
How Fault Percentages Get Decided
In a trial, a jury usually decides each party’s share of fault. The state’s civil jury guides, known as CACI, describe how jurors weigh comparative fault. Jurors look at the evidence and the conduct of everyone involved.
Outside of court, insurers estimate fault during claim talks. Those estimates often drive settlement offers. However, an insurer’s view is not a court ruling. Evidence can change the picture.
Common Shared Fault Arguments
Insurers often raise similar arguments:
- The injured driver was speeding or following too closely.
- Someone on foot crossed against a signal.
- A cyclist rode without lights at night.
- The visitor ignored a clear warning sign.
- A passenger did not wear a seat belt.
Each argument needs evidence. Also, a shared fault argument may affect only part of the damages. For instance, a seat belt argument may relate only to certain injuries.
Several Defendants and Proposition 51
Some cases involve more than one defendant. Then the question becomes how to split responsibility among them. California voters passed Proposition 51 in 1986, which added Civil Code section 1431.2.
In general, that law makes each defendant responsible only for its own share of non economic damages, such as pain and suffering. Economic damages, such as medical bills, may follow different rules. You can read Civil Code section 1431.2 on the state legislature site.
Evidence That Shapes California Comparative Negligence Disputes
Because fault percentages matter so much, evidence matters too. Photos, video and witness accounts help show what each person did. Police reports may also play a role, though they rarely decide fault on their own.
The article on how police reports relate to fault explains why. The guide on rear end collision fault shows how shared fault plays out in a common crash type.
Shared Fault and Settlement Talks
Most injury claims settle without a trial. Even so, shared fault shapes those talks. An insurer that believes you were partly at fault will usually offer less.
Respond with evidence rather than argument. For example, a video clip or a witness account can shift an insurer’s view. In addition, keep your own account factual and consistent.
California Comparative Negligence for Pedestrians and Cyclists
People on foot and on bikes often face shared fault arguments. For example, an insurer may say a pedestrian crossed mid block or a cyclist rode against traffic. These arguments can reduce a recovery. However, drivers still owe a duty of care to everyone on the road.
So California comparative negligence in these cases often turns on visibility and timing. Video, lighting photos and witness accounts help show what the driver could have seen. In addition, the size and speed of a car usually create more risk than a person walking.
Children add another layer. A young child’s conduct may be judged by what is reasonable for a child of that age. That standard can affect how much fault, if any, an insurer can assign.
Other Rules That Can Apply
Some situations follow special rules. For example, certain recreational activities involve a doctrine about inherent risks. Claims against public agencies also follow their own steps and timelines.
Uninsured drivers may face limits on some damages under Proposition 213. These rules can interact with comparative fault in complex ways.
The California injury lawsuits hub lists more articles on claims and court steps. Fault questions can change the value of a claim a great deal. For advice about how these rules apply to your circumstances, consider speaking with a qualified California personal injury attorney.
This article is general information, not legal advice. Laws and deadlines change and every case is different. Talk with a licensed California attorney about your situation.