Believing you made a mistake during an accident does not necessarily mean you have no California injury claim. When another party also caused the harm, comparative negligence may affect the amount recoverable rather than automatically ending the case. In this video, attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez explains why shared responsibility deserves careful investigation.
What California comparative negligence means
In an ordinary negligence case, the injured person’s share of responsibility can reduce damages. The analysis asks whether that person’s failure to use reasonable care contributed to the harm. It also examines what the other people involved did and how their conduct affected the outcome.
California generally follows a pure comparative negligence approach. A person is not automatically barred from recovery simply because their fault reaches a particular percentage. But there must still be a viable claim against another responsible party. Other defenses, legal rules and practical recovery issues can matter.
A simple example of a fault reduction
Suppose proven damages are $100,000 and the injured person is assigned 20 percent of the responsibility. Applying that reduction leaves $80,000 before considering other issues. This illustration explains the arithmetic; it does not estimate the value of any actual case or the amount a client would receive.
Attorney fees, case expenses, liens, coverage limits and other applicable adjustments can affect the practical result. Cases with multiple responsible parties can also raise separate questions about allocating different types of damages. An individual evaluation is needed.
An insurer’s percentage is a position to examine
An adjuster may argue that a driver reacted too slowly, a pedestrian failed to look or a shopper should have noticed a condition. That assertion is not a court determination. Ask what facts support it, and preserve communications explaining the insurer’s reasoning.
A report, photograph or witness account may help, but no single item always resolves fault. A useful investigation considers the full sequence of events, visibility, the opportunity to react and the conduct of everyone involved. Avoid accepting a percentage simply because it was stated confidently.
Evidence can change the responsibility analysis
Keep original photographs and videos, witness information, incident reports and relevant messages. Identify nearby cameras and potentially useful records promptly. Scene conditions can change and recordings may be overwritten. Tell counsel what evidence may exist even if you do not personally have it.
Be accurate about your own conduct. Distinguish what you remember from an inference or something another person said. Do not delete unfavorable material, alter images or coordinate accounts with witnesses. Honest disclosure allows counsel to evaluate the difficult facts and possible responses.
Get advice before deciding you have no case
Shared fault can arise in vehicle collisions, bicycle and pedestrian incidents, and falls on unsafe property. The legal analysis depends on the claim and the circumstances. A mistake may be relevant without having caused the accident, and a serious injury alone does not establish another party’s negligence.
Seek a timely evaluation rather than waiting for an insurer to finish investigating. Call 800-816-1529 for a free consultation with The Law Office of Norman Gregory Fernandez about a serious California injury.
General information, not legal advice. No result is guaranteed, and viewing this article does not create an attorney-client relationship.
About Attorney Norman Gregory Fernandez
