In most personal injury claims, fault is an essential consideration in determining compensation. Yet, accidents do not always result from a single party. In cases where more than one party is responsible, the court relies on a comparative fault rule when dividing damages equally. This doctrine influences how much a plaintiff recovers and is commonly used in vehicle accidents, slip and fall accidents, medical malpractice, and other negligence-related claims.
This article delves into comparative fault, the varieties thereof, and how it’s applied by states, along with instances of applications, including to compensation.
In this Article, we are going to analyze the definition and function of the common fund doctrine, its operations, applications in court cases, major court decisions, and exceptions to the doctrine.
What Is Comparative Fault?
Comparative fault is a legal principle used to determine liability when multiple parties are responsible for an accident or injury. Instead of assigning 100% of the blame to one party, the court divides fault among all involved parties based on their level of negligence. This system ensures that damages are allocated fairly according to each party’s contribution to the incident.
Key Features of Comparative Fault
- Shared liability: More than one party can be held responsible for an accident.
- Proportional damages: Compensation is reduced based on the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
- State-dependent rules: Different states follow different versions of comparative fault laws.
Types of Comparative Fault
There are three main types of comparative fault systems used in different U.S. states.
1. Pure Comparative Fault
In states following pure comparative fault, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault for the accident. However, their compensation is reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found 70% at fault, they will only receive $30,000 after the reduction.
Some of the states that follow this system include California, New York, Florida, and several others.
2. Modified Comparative Fault (50% Rule)
Under the 50% rule, a plaintiff can only recover damages if they are 49% or less at fault. If the plaintiff is 50% or more responsible, they receive no compensation at all.
For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 but found 50% at fault, they receive $0 because they are equally responsible for the accident.
This rule applies in several states, including Arkansas, Georgia, and Idaho.
3. Modified Comparative Fault (51% Rule)
The 51% rule is similar to the 50% rule but allows recovery if the plaintiff is 50% at fault. However, if the plaintiff is 51% or more responsible, they cannot recover damages.
For example, if a plaintiff is found 51% responsible, they receive nothing. If they are 50% or less responsible, their compensation is reduced proportionally.
States that follow this rule include Texas, Illinois, and Colorado.
Comparative Fault vs. Contributory Negligence
While comparative fault allows plaintiffs to recover partial damages, contributory negligence is a much harsher rule.
- In states following contributory negligence, a plaintiff cannot recover anything if they are even 1% at fault for the accident.
- This system is used in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C.
For example, if a plaintiff is found just 5% responsible for a car accident, they receive no compensation at all under contributory negligence laws.
Examples of Cases Involving Comparative Fault
Comparative fault applies in various types of personal injury cases, including:
1. Car Accidents
- Two drivers crash at an intersection.
- Driver A ran a red light, but Driver B was speeding.
- A court finds Driver A 70% at fault and Driver B 30% at fault.
Driver B’s compensation is reduced by 30%.
2. Slip and Fall Accidents
- A customer slips on a wet floor in a grocery store.
- The store failed to put up a warning sign, but the customer was texting and not paying attention.
- The court finds the store 60% responsible and the customer 40% responsible.
- The customer’s compensation is reduced by 40%.
3. Medical Malpractice
- A patient fails to follow post-surgery instructions, causing complications.
- The surgeon also made an error during the procedure.
- The court assigns the surgeon 80% of the blame and the patient 20%.
- The patient’s compensation is reduced by 20%.
Key Court Rulings on the Common Fund Doctrine
The percentage of fault assigned to the plaintiff directly affects how much they can recover in damages. Here’s how compensation is reduced based on fault:
- If a plaintiff is found 10% at fault, their compensation is reduced by 10%.
- If they are 30% at fault, they receive only 70% of the total damages.
- If they are 50% or more at fault in a modified comparative fault state, they may receive nothing at all.
- In a pure comparative fault state, even if a plaintiff is 90% at fault, they can still recover 10% of the damages.
How to Prove Comparative Fault in Court
Both plaintiffs and defendants use evidence to argue their percentage of fault.
Types of Evidence Used in Comparative Fault Cases
- Police reports – Documents accident details and fault determinations.
- Witness statements – Provides unbiased accounts of the incident.
- Surveillance footage – Captures actions leading up to the accident.
- Medical records – Shows injury severity and causation.
- Expert testimony – Specialists explain how the accident occurred.
Comparative Fault Laws by State
Each state applies comparative fault laws differently. Some use pure comparative fault, while others follow modified versions with thresholds that bar recovery above certain fault percentages.
- Pure Comparative Fault States: California, New York, Florida, and 10 others.
- 50% Modified Comparative Fault States: Georgia, Arkansas, Idaho, and several others.
- 51% Modified Comparative Fault States: Texas, Illinois, Colorado, and more.
- Contributory Negligence States (Harshest Rule): Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C.
Understanding your state’s comparative fault system is essential when filing a personal injury claim because it determines how much compensation you can recover.
Defenses Used in Comparative Fault Cases
Defendants often try to shift blame onto the plaintiff to reduce the amount they must pay. Common defenses include:
- Assumption of risk – The plaintiff knowingly took on a dangerous activity (e.g., skydiving or riding a roller coaster).
- Failure to mitigate damages – The plaintiff did not seek medical treatment or ignored doctor’s advice, worsening their injuries.
- Pre-existing injuries – The injuries were caused by a prior condition, not the accident itself.
About the Author
Neil Bhartia
Neil Bhartia isn’t your typical, stuffy attorney that you see on TV. While some have their sights exclusively on money and treat their clients like a number, Neil takes a personal interest in every single client he has. As an empath, Neil understands that people that seek legal help are typically in an involuntary, and stressful situation, and he goes out of his way to diffuse the stress and educate clients on each every detail of the legal process.
