Unpacking California’s Comparative Negligence Law

Every state has its own rules when it comes to personal injury lawsuits. These rules state how and when you can file a personal injury lawsuit against another party. Since the law recognizes that more than one party can contribute negligence to an incident, it becomes important to determine when a plaintiff can file a lawsuit against a defendant. The concept is known as comparative negligence. California operates on what is known as a “pure comparative negligence” rule. This means that a plaintiff can file a lawsuit even if they are partially to blame for the accident that caused their injury. In this article, the Oakland personal injury attorneys at Venardi Zurada will discuss California’s pure comparative negligence rule and how it works.

Comparative versus contributory negligence 

To understand comparative negligence better, you must understand contributory negligence. In some states, you are barred from filing a lawsuit if you contribute any negligence at all to the incident that caused your injury. In other states, you can only contribute so much negligence to the incident before you are barred from filing a lawsuit. The majority of these states operate on a 50% rule. In other words, if you contribute more than 50% negligence to the incident, you are barred from filing a personal injury lawsuit against the defendant.

California has no such barrier. Instead, a plaintiff can file a lawsuit no matter how much liability or fault they contribute to the incident that caused their injury. A plaintiff could be 99% responsible for their injury but still file a personal injury lawsuit.

How comparative negligence works in practice 

While you are still entitled to file a lawsuit even if you are 99% responsible for your injuries, the rule limits how much you can recover in damages. For example, if I’m involved in a car accident and it’s determined that I am 50% responsible for the accident, I am only entitled to recover 50% of my total damages for the accident. These complex claims are known as comparative fault claims. They involve instances where more than one party contributes fault to an accident.

Comparative negligence in a premises liability claim

 Let’s use a common slip and fall case as an example. Let’s say you’re in a gas station and you’re getting a slushy. The floor around the slushy area is wet and dangerous. While you are approaching the area, your cell phone dings. You look at your cell phone, don’t notice the dangerous area of wet floor, and slip and fall, injuring your ankle.

A jury might find that the store owner is liable for failing to remedy the dangerous condition on their property. They may also find that you are liable for failing to pay attention to where you were going and looking at your cell phone as you were traversing the area. The jury holds the proprietor 90% liable for your injuries. The remaining 10% of the negligence they assign to you.

Talk to an Oakland, CA Personal Injury Lawyer Today 

Venardi Zurada represents the interests of Oakland, CA residents who have been injured due to negligence. Call our Oakland personal injury lawyers today to schedule a consultation and learn more about how we can help.