California is one of 13 states with a fault-based insurance system that operates under pure comparative negligence law. This system allows injury victims to recover compensation for injuries caused by another party even if they contributed to the cause of the accident or the severity of the injuries. While some states have no-fault insurance laws and others use a modified comparative negligence system that only allows compensation recovery for those less than 50% at fault, California’s pure comparative negligence system allows an injury victim to recover compensation for damages like medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, even if they are 99% at fault—although this would result in recovering only one percent of their damages.
California’s Fault-Based Insurance System Under Civil Code 1714
A pure comparative negligence insurance system holds those who cause injury to others accountable—typically through the appropriate insurance system, like auto insurance after a car accident or commercial property liability insurance after a slip-and-fall accident in a big box store. California Civil Code 1714 states the following:
“Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself or herself.”
Under this law, insurance companies may reduce the amount of an injury victim’s payout on a compensation claim by the percentage of fault they are found to have contributed to the accident.
How Does Pure Comparative Negligence Work?
After an accident or injury, the insurance company assigns an adjuster to investigate. Depending on the results of the investigation and any evidence of liability presented by the injury victim’s attorney after their investigation, the insurer assigns the percentage of fault each victim contributed to the accident. For example, in a car accident in Van Nuys, if a driver runs a red light and has a T-bone collision with another vehicle in the intersection they are 100% at fault and their insurance company must pay the full value of the claim within the limits of the policy. But suppose a similar accident occurred in which one driver ran a red light and had a T-bone collision in an intersection but the other driver was exceeding the speed limit by 10 miles per hour. An insurance adjuster could conclude that had the speeding driver driven at the posted speed limit, they would have had time to stop before the collision. In this case, the insurance adjuster could assign 20% of the fault in the accident to the speeding driver. In a car accident claim for $100,000 in damages, they would recover $80,000 from the insurance company of the driver who ran the red light. That driver could recover $20,000 of a $100,000 injury claim from the speeding driver’s insurance.
What If I Disagree With the Percentage of Fault an Insurance Company Claims I Contributed to an Accident?
California’s pure comparative negligence law benefits those who contributed to the cause of the injury by allowing them to recover compensation even if they were partly at fault. Unfortunately, it also incentivizes the insurance company to assign undue percentages of fault to injury victims to reduce the amount they have to pay out on a claim. After an accident or injury, it’s best to hire a Van Nuys injury lawyer to investigate the cause of the accident, anticipate the methods insurance companies use against injury victims, and document clear evidence of liability to make a compelling claim for the highest amount of compensation.
