When an accident occurs, determining fault is a critical step in deciding who bears financial responsibility for the resulting damages. Each state follows specific negligence laws that dictate how compensation is awarded. Some states apply comparative negligence rules, allowing injured parties to recover damages even if they share some blame. Others enforce contributory negligence, which can completely bar recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence played any role in the accident.
Understanding the interaction between the plaintiff’s negligence and the defendant’s negligence is essential when filing a claim. The degree of fault attributable to each party can significantly impact the amount a plaintiff can recover—or whether they receive anything at all. Whether you suffered injuries in a car accident, a slip-and-fall incident, or another situation involving multiple defendants or third-party defendants sharing fault, understanding your state’s approach to comparative fault can make all the difference.
Let’s break down these legal principles to clarify how courts assign fault and what it means for your ability to seek damages.
What Is Contributory Negligence?
Contributory negligence is a strict legal doctrine that bars plaintiffs from recovering damages if they share even a small percentage of fault for an accident. This rule applies in a few jurisdictions, making personal injury claims challenging for plaintiffs.
If the plaintiff contributed fault to the accident, even slightly, they cannot recover damages.
The defendant’s negligence becomes irrelevant if the plaintiff’s fault is established.
For example, if a pedestrian jaywalks and a speeding driver hits them, the court may deny the claim entirely under the plaintiff’s contributory negligence, even though the driver also acted recklessly.
This harsh standard has led many states to adopt comparative negligence models, which allow partial recovery.
Understanding Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence provides a fairer approach to determining liability in personal injury cases. Under this doctrine, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are partially at fault, with their recovery reduced by their percentage of fault.
There are two types of comparative negligence:
1. Pure Comparative Negligence
Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault. Their award is reduced in direct proportion to their share of responsibility.
For example, if a plaintiff is 80% responsible for an accident and the damages total $100,000, they can still receive $20,000.
While fairer than contributory negligence, this system may allow heavily responsible plaintiffs to claim compensation, which some states seek to prevent.
2. Modified Comparative Negligence
Under modified comparative negligence, plaintiffs can only recover damages if their percentage of fault is below a specific threshold—either 50% or 51%, depending on the state. If a plaintiff’s percentage of fault exceeds the allowable limit, they lose the right to compensation entirely.
For example, imagine a driver is involved in a car accident after running a red light. However, the other driver was speeding well over the limit at the time of the collision. In a modified comparative negligence state with a 50% threshold, the court determines that the driver who ran the red light was 49% at fault, while the speeding driver was 51% at fault. Because the first driver’s fault remains below the 50% bar, they can still recover 51% of the damages from the speeding driver. However, if the roles were reversed and the red-light runner was found to be 50% or more responsible, they would be barred from seeking damages altogether.
This system prevents individuals who bear significant responsibility for an accident from receiving compensation while still allowing partially at-fault plaintiffs to recover accident damages in proportion to their level of comparative fault.
Comparative Negligence Laws in Key States
Nevada’s Comparative Negligence Law
Nevada follows a modified comparative negligence model with a 51% threshold. This means that if a plaintiff is 51% or more at fault, they cannot recover damages. If a jury determines that the plaintiff’s percentage of fault is greater than the defendant’s, the plaintiff is barred from recovering compensation.
Statute: Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 41.141
California’s Comparative Negligence Law
California applies pure comparative negligence, allowing a plaintiff to recover even if their negligence is 99% responsible. This law ensures that injured parties can still claim compensation despite high personal fault.
Statute: California Civil Code Section 1714
Colorado’s Comparative Negligence Law
Colorado follows a modified comparative negligence model with a 50% bar threshold. The plaintiff can recover damages only if their share of negligence is less than 50%. If the plaintiff is found 50% or more at fault, they are barred from recovering damages.
Statute: Colorado Revised Statutes 13-21-111
How Courts Determine Fault
Courts analyze several factors when determining negligence:
Causation: Whether the plaintiff’s actions directly contributed to the accident.
Total negligence attribution: The combined responsibility of all involved parties, including third-party defendants.
Respective fault: The percentage of negligence attributable to each party.
Plaintiff’s percentage: How much the injured party contributed to their harm.
Juries assess these elements before damages are awarded. If a plaintiff’s combined fault exceeds state limits, their claim may be barred from recovery.
Exceptions and Special Rules
Some cases involve gross negligence, where one party’s reckless actions cause significantly greater harm.
In such cases:
Courts may allow full plaintiff’s damages recovery, even in comparative fault states.
If a plaintiff suffers severe injury due to another party’s gross negligence, exceptions may apply.
Affirmative defenses may include proving the plaintiff assumed the risk or asserting an avoidance defense, which argues that the plaintiff could have reasonably avoided the harm.
What This Means for Injured Parties
If you have been injured in an accident, understanding your state’s negligence action laws is crucial. Whether your state follows pure comparative fault or a modified comparative negligence model, your percentage of fault will impact your personal injury claim.
If your state follows contributory negligence, any fault attributable to you could bar your recovery.
If your state follows comparative negligence, you may still recover damages, but they will be reduced in proportion to your degree of fault.
If multiple defendants are involved, the court will assess each party’s negligence to determine their respective level of fault.
Why an Experienced Attorney Matters
Determining liability in negligence cases can be complex. Courts assess causal total negligence, examine the plaintiff’s negligence, and consider affirmative defenses that may impact compensation. If you are seeking to recover accident damages, working with an experienced attorney can help maximize your claim.
Protect Your Rights After an Accident
Understanding the difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence can determine whether you receive compensation after an accident. Each state enforces specific civil procedure laws to address negligence attributable to all involved parties. Whether addressing contributory negligence or establishing another party’s liability, understanding your legal rights is essential.
If you have been injured due to another party’s total fault, seeking legal guidance is crucial. At Bourassa Law Group, our attorneys help clients navigate personal injury cases, ensuring they understand their rights and seek damages effectively. Contact us today for a free consultation.
1-800-870-8910