What Happens If You Were Partially at Fault for Causing a Wreck
Often, in the aftermath of a motor vehicle accident, the facts clearly demonstrate that one party caused the accident. It’s not uncommon, though, that both parties to a collision contributed to causing the crash. One party may have failed to stop at a red light or stop sign, but the other party may have been using a handheld device at the time. The accident could conceivably have been avoided if either one of the parties had been acting reasonably. What happens if you’re in a car accident where you were partially at fault? Do you forfeit your right to recover for the wrongful acts of another person? These questions are addressed in Texas by the legal principle of comparative fault.
What Is Comparative Fault?
Comparative fault (also called “comparative negligence”) is a modern approach to situations where an injured party contributed to causing the accident in which they were injured. Historically, the principle of “contributory negligence” applied in such circumstances. Under the theory of contributory negligence, if the injured party contributed in any way, or to any extent, to causing the accident, they were banned from recovering any damages.
When contributory negligence was the controlling law, defense attorneys would look for even the slightest evidence that the injured person had acted unreasonably and seek to have the claim dismissed. Such an approach often led to unfair results, with defendants who were grossly or egregiously careless avoiding liability simply because the injured party was marginally negligent. In response, most states have replaced the principle of contributory negligence with comparative negligence.
With comparative negligence, the judge and jury first determine the full extent of the injured party’s losses. Once the full measure of damages has been calculated, the jury then determines the degree to which the injured party was at fault, stated as a percentage of liability. The damage award will then be reduced by the percentage of the plaintiff’s liability.
For example, the jury may determine that the plaintiff (injured party) suffered $750,000 in lost wages, unreimbursed medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of companionship or consortium, and/or property loss or damage. If the jury then rules that the injured party was 20% responsible for causing the accident, the original damage award ($750,000) would be reduced by $150,000 (20% of $750,000), and the plaintiff would be awarded $600,000.
Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence
The comparative negligence approach comes in two types—either “pure” or “modified.” In those states that have adopted a pure comparative negligence standard, the injured party will always receive something, unless it’s determined that they were entirely responsible for causing the accident. For example, if the person in the example above was found to be 80% responsible, there would still be a damage award of $150,000 (20% of $750,000). In states that follow the modified comparative negligence approach (including Texas), an injured party can recover damages only if their liability is 50% or less. Otherwise, there is no damage award.
Let the Proven Car Accident Lawyers at Bailey & Galyen Help You Pursue Full and Fair Compensation
At the law offices of Bailey & Galyen, we have successfully represented thousands of car accident victims in Texas over the past four decades. We have a comprehensive knowledge and understanding of how to help injured people protect their legal and financial rights after a car crash. Contact us by e-mail or call our offices. Our phones are answered 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
