If you were injured in an accident in California, you may be wondering: Can I still recover compensation if I was partly at fault?
In many California personal injury cases, the answer is yes. California follows a pure comparative negligence system. This means an injured person may generally recover damages even if the injured person was partially responsible for causing the accident or injury. However, the amount of compensation may be reduced according to the injured person’s percentage of fault.
California adopted this approach in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), when the California Supreme Court rejected the traditional all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule and replaced it with a system that apportions responsibility according to fault. The court described California’s approach as a “pure” form of comparative fault, meaning a plaintiff’s recovery is not automatically barred simply because the plaintiff was as responsible as, or more responsible than, the defendant.
Understanding California comparative negligence law can be important after a car accident, motorcycle crash, pedestrian accident, slip and fall, premises liability incident, or other injury-causing event.
This guide explains how comparative negligence works in California, how a percentage of fault can affect damages, what happens when multiple people contribute to an injury and personal injury claims.
What Is Comparative Negligence in California?
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that allows responsibility for an injury to be divided among people who contributed to the harm.
California Civil Code § 1714 establishes a general rule that people can be responsible for injuries caused by their lack of ordinary care or skill. The statute also recognizes circumstances in which the injured person’s own lack of ordinary care contributed to the injury.
In a personal injury lawsuit, comparative negligence may become an issue when the defendant argues that the injured person also acted unreasonably and contributed to the accident or resulting harm.
For example, imagine that a driver causes a collision by failing to stop at a red light. The injured driver was also speeding, and the evidence supports a finding that the speeding contributed to the accident.
A jury could potentially assign:
- 80% fault to the defendant
- 20% fault to the plaintiff
If the plaintiff’s total legally recoverable damages were $100,000, a 20% reduction would result in $80,000.
This is a simplified illustration. The actual amount recoverable in a personal injury case depends on the facts, evidence, applicable law, damages, and other issues.
Is California a Pure Comparative Negligence State?
Yes. California follows a pure comparative negligence system.
California does not generally have a rule that automatically prevents a plaintiff from recovering because the plaintiff was 50% or more responsible for an accident.
The California Supreme Court has described California’s comparative fault system as a pure form of comparative fault under which liability is apportioned according to fault even when the plaintiff is equally at fault as, or more at fault than, another party.
This is an important distinction from states that use modified comparative negligence rules.
What Does “Pure” Comparative Negligence Mean?
“Pure” means that the plaintiff’s recovery is generally reduced in proportion to the plaintiff’s assigned share of fault rather than being automatically eliminated after reaching a particular percentage.
For example:
| Plaintiff’s Fault | Total Damages | Illustrative Reduced Amount |
|---|---|---|
| 10% | $100,000 | $90,000 |
| 20% | $100,000 | $80,000 |
| 50% | $100,000 | $50,000 |
| 70% | $100,000 | $30,000 |
| 90% | $100,000 | $10,000 |
These calculations illustrate the basic mathematical concept. They are not predictions of what a court, jury, insurer, or opposing party would determine in an actual case.
The plaintiff must still establish a valid legal claim before recovering damages.
How Does Comparative Negligence Affect a Personal Injury Claim?
Comparative negligence can affect the amount of damages a plaintiff may recover.
A negligence claim generally involves questions such as:
- Did the defendant owe the plaintiff a duty of care?
- Did the defendant fail to use reasonable care?
- Did that conduct cause or substantially contribute to the plaintiff’s injury?
- Did the plaintiff suffer legally compensable damages?
- Did the plaintiff also fail to use reasonable care?
- If so, did the plaintiff’s conduct contribute to the harm?
California’s general negligence framework begins with the duty to use ordinary care. Civil Code § 1714 provides the statutory foundation for that general duty.
Comparative fault then addresses how responsibility should be allocated when the plaintiff’s own conduct also contributed to the injury.
Example of Comparative Negligence in a California Car Accident
Consider a hypothetical collision.
Driver A is traveling through an intersection while distracted and fails to properly observe traffic. Driver B is also traveling faster than was reasonable under the circumstances.
The vehicles collide, and Driver B suffers $200,000 in damages.
After considering the evidence, a jury could potentially determine that:
- Driver A was 75% responsible.
- Driver B was 25% responsible.
- Driver B’s total damages were $200,000.
If Driver B’s 25% comparative fault were applied to the damages, the resulting amount would be $150,000.
The example demonstrates the principle, not the outcome of a real case. In an actual California car accident claim, the percentage of fault depends on evidence concerning what happened and how each person’s conduct contributed to the accident and injuries.
Can You Recover Compensation If You Were Partially at Fault?
Generally, yes. Being partly at fault does not automatically prevent a personal injury plaintiff from recovering damages in California.
This is one of the most important aspects of California’s pure comparative negligence system.
California previously followed a contributory negligence approach that could prevent a negligent plaintiff from recovering. In Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court rejected that “all-or-nothing” approach and adopted comparative negligence.
Today, a plaintiff’s own percentage of responsibility can reduce the amount of damages recovered.
For example, a person who is found 25% responsible does not necessarily lose the entire claim. Instead, the person’s damages may generally be reduced by 25%, assuming the underlying claim is established and no other legal rule changes the result.
What If I Am 50% at Fault in a California Accident?
Being 50% at fault does not automatically bar recovery under California’s pure comparative negligence system.
For example, if a plaintiff establishes $100,000 in damages and is found to be 50% responsible, a simplified calculation would result in $50,000 after the comparative-fault reduction.
The same basic principle applies if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% responsible.
What If I Am 70% at Fault?
California’s pure comparative negligence rule does not generally impose a 50% cutoff.
For example, if a plaintiff establishes $100,000 in damages and is assigned 70% of the fault, a simplified calculation would leave $30,000 after reducing the damages by 70%.
However, a plaintiff who is found to be substantially responsible for an accident still faces a significant reduction in damages. More importantly, the plaintiff must first establish that another party is legally responsible for the injury.
Who Determines the Percentage of Fault?
When a personal injury case goes to trial, the trier of fact, such as a jury in a jury trial, determines factual questions concerning responsibility based on the evidence presented.
The parties may also dispute percentages of fault during settlement negotiations.
For example, an insurance company might argue that an injured driver was 40% responsible for a collision. The injured person might strongly disagree and contend that the other driver was entirely responsible.
An insurer’s position is not necessarily a final legal determination. If the dispute is not resolved through settlement and proceeds to trial, the factfinder evaluates the evidence and determines the applicable allocation of fault.
What Evidence Is Used to Determine Comparative Fault?
Evidence can be especially important when the parties disagree about who caused an accident.
Depending on the circumstances, relevant evidence may include:
- Accident-scene photographs
- Dashcam recordings
- Surveillance video
- Traffic-camera footage
- Police or incident reports
- Witness testimony
- Medical records
- Vehicle damage
- Accident reconstruction evidence
- Property maintenance records
- Electronic records
- Cellphone records
- Employment and wage documentation
- Statements made by people involved in the incident
Example: Evidence in a Car Accident Claim
Suppose two drivers provide completely different accounts of a collision.
One driver says the other vehicle suddenly changed lanes. The other driver says the first vehicle was speeding and failed to maintain a safe distance.
Photos of vehicle damage, traffic-camera footage, witness testimony, and other evidence could become important in determining how the collision happened.
The percentage of fault should be based on the evidence and applicable legal standards rather than simply on which person makes the stronger accusation.
Can a Defendant Claim the Injured Person Caused the Accident?
Yes. A defendant may argue that the plaintiff was also negligent and contributed to the injury.
But making the allegation does not automatically establish comparative fault.
The evidence must support the relevant elements. In a negligence case, the plaintiff’s conduct must be legally relevant to the harm rather than merely being something the defendant considers careless in hindsight.
For example, after a slip-and-fall accident, a property owner might argue that the injured person was distracted by a cellphone and therefore failed to notice a dangerous condition.
Whether that argument actually establishes comparative fault would depend on the evidence and circumstances.
What Happens When Multiple People Are at Fault?
Some California personal injury cases involve multiple defendants or other potentially responsible people.
For example, a serious accident could involve:
- Two negligent drivers;
- A property owner and a maintenance company;
- Multiple contractors;
- A manufacturer and other parties in a product-related claim; or
- Other individuals or entities whose conduct may have contributed to the injury.
California comparative-fault principles can require the allocation of responsibility among multiple parties. California Supreme Court authorities have recognized that fault may be allocated among parties and, in appropriate circumstances, certain nonparties whose conduct contributed to the plaintiff’s harm.
This can make a multi-party personal injury case significantly more complicated than a dispute involving only one plaintiff and one defendant.
How Are Economic and Noneconomic Damages Treated?
California law distinguishes between economic damages and noneconomic damages.
What Are Economic Damages?
Economic damages are generally losses that can be objectively verified in monetary terms.
Examples include:
- Medical expenses
- Lost earnings
- Certain future financial losses
- Property damage
- Costs associated with necessary services
- Other objectively verifiable monetary losses
California Civil Code § 1431.2 expressly defines economic damages to include objectively verifiable monetary losses such as medical expenses and loss of earnings.
What Are Noneconomic Damages?
Noneconomic damages concern losses that generally do not have a specific invoice or straightforward monetary value.
Depending on the circumstances, they may include:
- Pain
- Suffering
- Emotional distress
- Mental suffering
- Inconvenience
- Loss of society and companionship
- Loss of consortium
- Injury to reputation
- Humiliation
California Civil Code § 1431.2 identifies these categories in its definition of noneconomic damages.
How Does Proposition 51 Affect Comparative Negligence?
California’s Proposition 51, approved by voters in 1986, changed certain rules concerning liability for noneconomic damages when multiple defendants are involved.
Under California Civil Code §1431.2, in qualifying actions based on comparative fault, each defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages is generally several rather than joint. Each defendant is liable for the portion of noneconomic damages allocated to that defendant based on the defendant’s percentage of fault.
This distinction matters because economic and noneconomic damages are not treated identically when multiple defendants are involved.
The allocation of economic damages can be subject to California’s joint-and-several-liability rules, while noneconomic damages are subject to the separate rule established by § 1431.2.
Because multiple-party liability can become legally complex, the exact consequences depend on the facts and legal theories involved.
Does Comparative Negligence Apply to Pain and Suffering?
Comparative fault can reduce a plaintiff’s recovery of noneconomic damages, including pain and suffering, in an appropriate case.
For example, assume a jury determines that a plaintiff has $100,000 in noneconomic damages and is 20% responsible for the harm.
A simplified calculation would reduce the plaintiff’s damages by 20%.
When multiple defendants are involved, however, California Civil Code § 1431.2 creates additional rules concerning how defendants are responsible for noneconomic damages.
Certain types of cases may also have specialized statutory rules affecting damages, so a simple percentage calculation should not be assumed to apply identically to every personal injury claim.
Is Comparative Negligence the Same as Contributory Negligence?
No.
Although the terms sound similar, they describe different approaches to handling an injured person’s own negligence.
Under traditional contributory negligence, a plaintiff could potentially be barred from recovering damages if the plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the injury.
California rejected that all-or-nothing approach in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. and adopted pure comparative negligence instead.
Under California’s comparative negligence system, a plaintiff’s own percentage of responsibility generally reduces the damages rather than automatically eliminating the claim.
How Does Comparative Negligence Affect a Personal Injury Settlement?
Comparative negligence can become a major issue during settlement negotiations.
Suppose an injured person has substantial medical expenses and lost income after a collision. The insurance company accepts some responsibility but argues that the injured person was also partly responsible.
The parties may disagree about:
- Whether the plaintiff was negligent;
- Whether the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to the accident;
- What percentage of fault should be assigned;
- The amount of economic damages;
- The amount of noneconomic damages; and
- Whether other people or entities share responsibility.
A settlement can resolve these disputes without a trial, but the percentage of fault asserted by an insurer during negotiations is not necessarily the percentage that a court or jury would ultimately determine.
Does Comparative Negligence Apply to Every California Personal Injury Case?
Not necessarily.
Comparative negligence is particularly important in negligence-based claims, but California personal injury law encompasses many different legal theories.
Examples include:
- Car accident claims
- Motorcycle accident claims
- Pedestrian accident claims
- Bicycle accident claims
- Slip-and-fall claims
- Premises liability claims
- Product liability claims
- Certain professional negligence claims
- Wrongful death claims
Different legal theories can involve different rules concerning liability, defenses, damages, and fault allocation.
Some claims are also governed by specialized statutes.
For that reason, it is important not to assume that a general comparative-negligence rule resolves every issue in every California personal injury case.
How Long Do You Have to File a California Personal Injury Lawsuit?
For many claims involving an injury or death caused by another person’s wrongful act or neglect, California Code of Civil Procedure §335.1 provides a two-year statute of limitations.
However, this should not be treated as a universal deadline for every injury claim.
Different statutes or special rules may apply depending on the circumstances. Claims involving government entities, for example, can involve separate claim-presentation requirements and deadlines. Other specialized claims can have their own limitation periods.
Because missing an applicable deadline can affect the ability to pursue a claim, anyone considering legal action should determine which deadline applies to the specific circumstances rather than relying solely on the general two-year rule.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can I sue if I was partly responsible for an accident in California?
Potentially, yes. California follows pure comparative negligence, so being partly responsible does not automatically prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages. The amount recovered may be reduced according to the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
What happens if I am 20% at fault?
If a plaintiff establishes $100,000 in damages and is assigned 20% responsibility, a simplified calculation would reduce the damages by 20%, leaving $80,000.
What happens if I am 50% at fault?
California’s pure comparative negligence system does not generally impose a 50% cutoff. A plaintiff who is 50% responsible may still recover, subject to the applicable reduction and other legal requirements.
What happens if I am 70% at fault?
A plaintiff may still potentially recover under California’s pure comparative negligence system, but the damages would generally be reduced according to the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
Can I recover if I am 90% at fault?
California’s pure comparative negligence rule does not generally create a percentage threshold that automatically bars recovery. However, being assigned 90% fault would result in a substantial reduction, and the plaintiff must still establish a valid claim against another responsible party.
Can an insurance company decide that I am partly at fault?
An insurance company can make an allegation or settlement position regarding comparative fault, but that position is not necessarily the final legal determination.
If a case proceeds to trial, the trier of fact determines disputed factual issues based on the evidence.
Does comparative negligence reduce pain and suffering?
It can. Comparative fault can affect the damages recoverable in a negligence case, including noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering. California’s rules for allocating noneconomic damages among multiple defendants are addressed separately by Civil Code § 1431.2.
Can another person who was not sued be considered responsible?
Potentially. California comparative-fault principles can involve responsibility attributed to certain nonparties, depending on the circumstances and applicable procedural rules.
Is California a modified comparative negligence state?
No. California follows pure comparative negligence, rather than a modified comparative negligence system with a general 50% or 51% bar to recovery.
Key Takeaways
California’s comparative negligence system is based on the idea that responsibility for an injury can be apportioned according to the parties’ respective contributions to the harm.
The key points are:
- California follows pure comparative negligence.
- A plaintiff’s own negligence can reduce the amount of damages recovered.
- There is generally no automatic 50% bar to recovery.
- Being partially responsible does not automatically eliminate a personal injury claim.
- Evidence is important when the parties dispute who caused an accident.
- Multiple defendants or potentially responsible nonparties can make fault allocation more complicated.
- California law treats economic and noneconomic damages differently when allocating liability among multiple defendants.
- California Civil Code § 1431.2 generally makes each defendant’s liability for qualifying noneconomic damages several rather than joint.
- The general statute of limitations for an action involving injury or death caused by another’s wrongful act or neglect is two years under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1, although exceptions and special rules can apply.
Contact Southwest Legal
Questions about comparative negligence often arise when the facts surrounding an accident are disputed. Determining how responsibility may be allocated can involve reviewing accident evidence, medical records, witness accounts, insurance positions, and the specific legal rules that apply to the claim.
Southwest Legal is a Southern California law firm that handles personal injury matters in addition to criminal defense and other legal matters.
If you are dealing with a California personal injury matter and want to better understand the legal issues involved, contact us today for a free consultation. A consultation can provide an opportunity to discuss your situation, ask questions about the applicable legal process, and learn what options may be available based on the circumstances.
Disclaimer: This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. No attorney-client relationship is formed unless and until the firm and client enter into an agreement for legal services. Laws may change, and legal outcomes depend on the specific facts of each case. Consult a qualified attorney for advice regarding your situation.