Determining Liability: The Injured Party Can Also Be At Fault

Determining who is at fault is one of the most crucial components in any accident claim. Normally, the person at fault is the one who is considered negligent. If he or she is deemed negligent, typically he or she must pay for the damages he or she caused to the injured party. However, it is not all the time that the negligent person is solely at fault for the accident.

In some accident claims, the whole panel cannot determine fault solely on the basis of the one who caused the accident. This is possible especially if the court found out that liability is shared between the two parties. When such situation arises, fault will then be allocated between the parties involved determined by the comparative and contributory negligence as per state law.

Contributory Negligence

In a pure contributory negligence theory, if the injured party is also found to have been partially at fault for the accident, he cannot be entitled to receive damage recovery for his injuries. Partial fault can be either a major or a minor one, depending on the accident itself. States of Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina and Virginia, along with Washington, D.C. follow this ruling.

For example, in a car accident, Person A's car hits Person B's car after making a left turn at a dark night. Person A is at fault automatically because he hits Person B's car as he was unable to see him. However, Person B was found out to have not been using headlights while driving. Enforcing the contributory negligence theory, Person B is not entitled for recovery from his injuries because he was partially at fault for the accident.

Comparative Negligence

Most states, however, follow a more proportionate form of negligence theory called comparative negligence. This allows the injured party who is partially at fault for the accident to recover a determined amount for his or her injuries. Comparative negligence is varied; it can be pure, proportional at 51 percent or proportional at 50 percent.

In a pure comparative fault, a person who is partially at fault for the accident is reduced by the percentage of his or her fault. Using the previous example, Person B was determined to be 80 percent at fault. The whole amount of damages, including injuries, is $10,000. He can only be entitled to receive $2,000 or $10,000 less 80 percent. Thirteen states adopt this kind of ruling, including the State of California.

Proportional comparative negligence at 51 percent is adopted in 21 states. Recovery for the damages is not given to the person partially at fault if the insurance company is allocated to more than 51 percent. Conversely, proportional comparative negligence at 50 percent is not allocated to both parties if there is an equal share of fault. The person partially at fault can only get compensation from the damages he sustained if he is less than 50 percent at fault.

If a person gets injured in a road mishap, he is entitled to receive damages from the injuries caused by the erring driver. Hiring an accident attorney Los Angeles would be of great help for the injured person, as his expertise will help determine the cost of damages he is entitled to receive. Also, the said attorney is adept in California laws regarding accidents, especially with concern to comparative negligence.