If you get hurt in an accident in California, you can sue to help cover your costs even if you were 99% at fault. This is because California is a “pure comparative negligence” state. The money damages you receive would just be reduced by your degree of fault.
For example, if you are 60% to blame for causing a car crash, and you sustain $10,000 in damages, the court would award you $4,000 ($10,000 minus 60%).
Most states follow stricter “comparative negligence” rules that bar recovery if you were 50% or more at fault for your injuries. A few states follow “contributory negligence” rules that do not let you recover any money even if you were only 1% percent at fault.
The following table compares how comparative negligence and contributory negligence work.
| Contributory Negligence | Comparative Negligence | |
| Definition | You are barred from recovering damages if you contributed to your own injury in any way. | You can recover damages even if you are partially at fault for your own injury, but the amount of damages is reduced based on your percentage of fault. |
| Fault Allocation | If you are even 1% at fault, you cannot recover any damages. | Damages are allocated based on the percentage of fault attributed to each party. |
| Jurisdictions | Only a few jurisdictions, such as Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C. | Most U.S. states use this doctrine, with variations like pure comparative negligence (like in California) and modified comparative negligence. |
| Fairness | Harsh and unfair, as it completely bars recovery even if the defendant is primarily at fault. | Reasonable and fair, since it allows you to recover damages in proportion to the defendant’s fault. |
| Example | If you are hit by a car while jaywalking, you are contributorily negligent and barred from recovering damages, even if the driver was speeding. | If you are hit by a car while jaywalking, and you are 30% at fault and the driver 70% at fault, you can still recover 70% of your damages. |
What is California’s comparative negligence law?
Most of the states in the United States, including California, are comparative negligence states. This means they apply comparative fault laws.
Per California’s pure comparative fault laws, you can recover damages in a personal injury lawsuit against a defendant. However, your ultimate recovery will be reduced by your own fault, or level of fault.1
In other words, in a personal injury case, a judge or jury will decide what percentage of your own negligence contributed to your injuries. If you were partially responsible for your own harm, the damages award will be reduced by your percentage of fault.2
Comparative negligence works, then, by reducing compensation for one’s own injuries in accordance with one’s own fault.
Consider, for example, a dog bite case where you helped provoke the canine by throwing a rock. Here, you clearly helped stir the dog and this could have helped cause the bite. If a jury determines that your actions were 10 percent to blame for the bite, then a final damage award will get lowered by 10 percent.
Comparative fault laws can apply to most California injury cases. Common types of claims involving these rules include:
- car accidents,
- bike accidents,
- premises liability,
- slip and fall accidents,
- product liability, and
- medical malpractice.
What is modified comparative negligence?
Comparative negligence states can apply either:
- pure comparative negligence laws, or
- modified comparative negligence laws.
As stated above, California follows a pure comparative negligence standard.
States that apply the legal doctrine of modified comparative negligence generally follow either a 50 percent rule or a 51 percent rule.
In a 50 percent rule state, you cannot collect any damages if you were 50 percent or more at fault for the accident.
In a 51 percent rule state, you cannot collect any damages if you were 51 percent or more at fault for the accident.
States like Nevada follow a modified comparative negligence 5o percent rule. In a personal injury accident in Nevada, you would be barred from recovering damages if you are more than 50 percent responsible for an accident or injury.
In a pure comparative negligence state, you can recover damages from a defendant even if you bear almost all of the responsibility for causing an accident.
What is contributory negligence?
Contributory negligence laws essentially prohibit you from recovering damages for an injury accident if a jury finds that you were negligent in any way for causing that accident. “In any way” means you are barred from recovery even if you helped cause an accident by a mere one percent.3
Only a few states still follow this system of negligence. Some include:
- Maryland,
- North Carolina (but not South Carolina)
- Virginia (but not West Virginia)
California used to apply a contributory negligence standard. But in 1975, the California Supreme Court decided that it was unfair. It replaced “contributory negligence” with California’s “comparative fault” (or “shared fault”) law.4
What types of damages can be awarded?
You can recover several different types of damages in a personal injury lawsuit. For example, you can get compensated for:
- medical expenses,
- lost wages,
- certain noneconomic damages (like pain and suffering), and
- property damage.
Note, though, that you are only entitled to compensation in most cases if you can show that the defendant acted negligently.
“Negligence” means that the defendant breached a duty of care that they owed to you.
This can often be difficult to prove, and you should seek the assistance of a skilled personal injury attorney or law firm in these types of cases.
Personal injury lawyers (like those in San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles) typically provide consultations and can help you get the compensation you deserve.
Additional Reading
For more in-depth information, refer to these scholarly articles:
- From Defect to Cause to Comparative Fault-Rethinking Some Product Liability Concepts – Article in Marquette Law Review.
- Pure vs. Modified Comparative Fault: Notes on the Debate – Article in Emory Law Journal.
- Products Liability and Plaintiff’s Fault – The Uniform Comparative Fault Act – Article in Mercer Law Review.
- Comparative Fault and the Nonparty Tortfeasor – Article in Indiana Law Review.
- Comparative Fault to the Limits – Article in Vanderbilt Law Review.
Legal References:
- Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
- California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) 406. See also Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270.
- Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
- Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3rd 804.
