Legal Definitions - comparative fault

Comparative fault is a legal principle used in personal injury cases to assess and allocate responsibility for an accident or injury among all parties whose actions contributed to it. Instead of assigning blame entirely to one party, this principle allows a court or jury to determine the percentage of fault attributable to each person involved. The amount of compensation an injured party can recover is then typically reduced in proportion to their own percentage of fault.

This concept is often referred to as comparative negligence, highlighting that the 'fault' being compared is frequently due to negligent actions.

• Example 1: Car Accident

  Imagine a scenario where Driver A is speeding and runs a yellow light, while Driver B, though not speeding, was briefly distracted by their car radio and didn't react as quickly as they could have to avoid a collision. A jury might determine that Driver A was 75% at fault for their excessive speed and failure to stop, and Driver B was 25% at fault for their momentary distraction.

  How it illustrates comparative fault: If Driver B suffered $20,000 in damages (medical bills, car repairs, etc.), their recovery would be reduced by their 25% share of fault. This means Driver B would be able to recover $15,000 (75% of $20,000) from Driver A.

• Example 2: Pedestrian and Cyclist Collision

  Consider a situation where a cyclist is riding on a sidewalk, which is prohibited by local ordinance, and a pedestrian steps out from behind a parked car without looking, resulting in a collision. A court could find the cyclist 60% at fault for violating the ordinance and riding on the sidewalk, and the pedestrian 40% at fault for failing to look before entering the path of travel.

  How it illustrates comparative fault: If the pedestrian's injuries and other losses amounted to $10,000, they would be able to recover $6,000 (60% of $10,000) from the cyclist. Conversely, if the cyclist also suffered damages, their recovery would be reduced by their 60% share of fault.

• Example 3: Workplace Incident

  A construction worker is injured when a piece of scaffolding collapses. An investigation reveals that the scaffolding company failed to properly secure a crucial joint (making them 80% at fault), but the worker also neglected to wear their mandatory safety harness, which would have prevented some of their injuries (making them 20% at fault).

  How it illustrates comparative fault: If the worker's total damages were assessed at $100,000, their compensation would be reduced by 20% due to their own contribution to the injury. Therefore, they would be able to recover $80,000 from the scaffolding company.