If you have suffered an injury in California – whether in a traffic accident, at work, or in a store – you may face a number of questions. Who is responsible? Can you be compensated if you are partly at fault? How much compensation can you expect? California’s law on pure comparative negligence directly affects your rights and ability to recover. This guide will help you understand your options and take the right steps toward fair compensation.
The Los Angeles personal injury lawyers at Bojat Law Group can help you with shared liability cases and ensure maximum compensation even when you are partially at fault for the accident.
The Three Main Legal Doctrines of Negligence
The American legal system has developed several different approaches to dealing with situations where there is shared responsibility. Some are strict and do not condone even the slightest mistake, while others are more flexible and allow you to be compensated even when you are predominantly at fault for the accident.
Historically, the English common law system, from which the American system was derived, was extremely strict – if you had contributed to an accident, you lost the right to any compensation. As society developed, however, most American states recognized that such an approach could lead to unfair results. Consequently, new doctrines have been developed that more fairly divide responsibility between the parties in a dispute.
Today in the United States there are three main systems for determining how liability and compensation will be distributed when multiple parties have contributed to an accident:
- Pure Comparative Negligence
- Modified Comparative Negligence
- Contributory Negligence
What Is Pure Comparative Negligence
This is the most liberal system that allows compensation even if you have a higher percentage of fault. California, Florida, and New York are the leading states using this system. If, for example, you suffered $100,000 in damages but were 80 percent at fault for the accident, you are still entitled to $20,000 in compensation. This system has been criticized by insurance companies because they feel that it encourages lawsuits from those who are predominantly at fault for the accident.
Case Precedent: Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975)
Li and V. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) is a landmark decision that fundamentally changed California law on the apportionment of liability for damages. Before this case, California used a contributory negligence system where the plaintiff could not receive any compensation if he had contributed to the accident.
With this ruling, the California Supreme Court introduced the system of pure comparative negligence. Under this system, the plaintiff may receive compensation even if he is largely to blame for the accident, but that compensation is reduced by a percentage of his fault.
CACI 405, which emerged from this case, continues to guide juries today in determining the percentage of guilt on each side. The jury must determine whether the prosecutor was negligent, whether that negligence contributed to the damage, and exactly what percentage of fault is on each side.
Modified Comparative Negligence
Modified comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that dominates the American legal system. More than 30 countries use some variant of this system that represents a middle ground between overly strict and overly liberal approaches in determining entitlement to compensation.
It has three main variants, each defining specific thresholds of fault that determine whether a plaintiff can recover damages in a personal injury case:
51 Percent Bar Rule
- A plaintiff can recover damages only if they are 50% or less at fault.
- If their fault reaches 51% or more, they are barred from recovery.
- Most common variation
- States using it: Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, Wisconsin
50 Percent Bar Rule
- A plaintiff can recover damages only if they are less than 50% at fault.
- If their fault is exactly 50% or more, they are barred from recovery.
- States using it: Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia.
Slight/Comparative Negligence
South Dakota uses a unique “slight/gross comparative negligence” system that differs from all other states. Instead of assigning a percentage of fault, the court assesses whether the parties’ conduct was “slight” (insignificant negligence) or “gross” (gross negligence). The plaintiff can be compensated only if his negligence was “slight”, and the defendant’s negligence “gross”.
This hybrid system, which combines elements of contributory negligence and comparative negligence, is often criticized because the law does not give clear definitions of the terms “slight” and “gross”, which creates unpredictability in judicial practice and makes it difficult for parties to assess their chances of success in a dispute.
What Is Contributory Negligence
| Doctrine | Fault Threshold for Plaintiff | Recovery for Plaintiff |
| Pure Comparative Negligence | No threshold (up to 99% at fault) | Reduced by plaintiff’s fault percentage |
| Modified Comparative Negligence | 50% or 51% (depending on the state) | Barred if fault exceeds threshold; otherwise, reduced by fault percentage |
| Contributory Negligence | 1% (any fault) | Barred completely |
Contributory negligence is the strictest liability-sharing system used today in only five jurisdictions:
- Alabama
- Maryland
- North Carolina
- Virginia
- District of Columbia
The basic rule is simple but strict: If the plaintiff has contributed to the accident even just 1 percent he loses the right to any compensation. For example, if a driver passes through a red light and hits you, but you are not wearing a seat belt, you will not receive any compensation because your omission contributed to the injuries.
Although the system has been criticized as unfair, states that retain it believe that it encourages maximum caution and reduces the number of lawsuits. However, most American states have abandoned it in favor of fairer systems of comparative negligence.
California's 'Pure Comparative Negligence' Law 2 Dividing Liability in Multi-Party Accidents
When multiple parties are responsible for an accident in California, the system of comparative negligence is applied in a special way. For economic damage (such as medical expenses), the principle of “joint and several liability” applies, meaning that you can recover the entire amount of damages from any responsible party, regardless of their percentage of fault. That party may later seek reimbursement from the other responsible parties.
However, for non-economic damages (such as pain and suffering), each party is only liable for its own percentage of fault under California Civil Code Section 1431.2. For example, if someone is 30% at fault, they may be liable for the total economic damage, but only for 30% of the non-economic damage.
Thus the main difference is that for economic damages (medical expenses, lost wages), any party can be held responsible for the entire amount, while for non-economic damages (pain and suffering), each party is only liable for their percentage of fault.
Top-Rated Personal Injury Attorneys | Call Bojat Law Group
Are you partly at fault for the accident? We are here to help you!
Many people feel that they are not entitled to compensation if they are partly responsible for the accident. However, the California Comparative Negligence Law protects your rights even in such situations.
At Bojat Law Group, our team of experienced lawyers know how to effectively establish the circumstances of the accident and reduce your percentage of liability. With the right approach and thorough gathering of evidence, you can get a substantial settlement even when the other side claims that you are mostly to blame.
With over 20 years of experience in the field of personal injury, we have successfully represented clients in the most complex cases of shared liability – from automobile accidents to pedestrian injuries. Our dedication is reflected in our case results – just last year, we secured over half a million dollars in compensation for our clients.
Do not let anyone tell you that you have no rights just because you have contributed to the accident. Call Bojat Law Group today to learn about your options.
Skip to content