What Is California’s Comparative Negligence Law?

In California, the principle of pure comparative negligence permits injured individuals to recover partial compensation, even when they bear some responsibility for the incident that caused their injuries.

Under this rule, even if you are found to be 99% at fault, you would still be eligible to recover 1% of sustained losses. This system ensures that some level of financial recovery is possible, regardless of the degree of shared responsibility.

If you are concerned that your own actions in causing an accident may prevent you from recovering compensation, here is what you need to know before pursuing damages in a personal injury case.

What Is “Comparative Negligence?”

How It May Affect Your Personal Injury Claim

Comparative negligence, also referred to as comparative fault, is the legal principle courts use to assign liability when multiple parties are involved in causing a personal injury accident. A distinct aspect of this rule is that the injured party seeking compensatory damages and/or non-economic damages may also be deemed partially at fault for the accident that led to their own injury.

Instead of an “all-or-nothing” approach, a jury decides the percentage of fault for each party involved. If the plaintiff is found to be partly responsible, their final compensation will be reduced in proportion to their assigned percentage of fault.

During a trial, juries receive guidance from the California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI) of the Judicial Council, specifically CACI 405 (Comparative Fault of Plaintiff) and CACI 406 (Apportionment of Responsibility). These instructions guide jurors in evaluating if the injured party’s negligence contributed to the accident and how much fault to assign among defendants and other involved parties, regardless of their direct involvement in the lawsuit.

Key Takeaways About Comparative Fault

• California follows the pure comparative negligence rule.
• The plaintiff (the individual filing the claim) can still recover damages even if they are partially responsible for the incident.
• A jury determines the percentage of fault assigned to each party.
• The total awarded compensation is reduced based on the plaintiff’s assigned percentage of fault.

Who Determines the Percentage of Fault in California Personal Injury Cases?

In California, comparative negligence rules dictate how fault is assigned in an accident. Typically, a jury, guided by specific instructions from the judge (California Civil Jury Instructions No. 405), determines the percentage of responsibility for both the plaintiff and defendant. In some instances, the judge may make this determination.

When a defendant claims that the plaintiff’s own negligence also contributed to the accident, the jury receives instructions to assign fault based on California’s comparative negligence rules.

If negligence contributed to the incident, the following four elements of negligence must be demonstrated.

1. Duty of Care: The defendant owed the plaintiff a reasonable duty of care, for example, to drive safely.
2. Breach of Duty: The defendant violated this duty through reckless actions, such as texting while driving.
3. Causation: The defendant’s breach directly led to the incident and the plaintiff’s injuries, such as causing a collision due to inattentiveness.
4. Damages: The accident resulted in the plaintiff sustaining economic or non-economic losses, including medical bills, lost wages, and emotional pain and suffering.

For blame to be assigned, significant evidence must support the claim. The total percentage of blame assigned to both the defendant and plaintiff must equal 100%.

How Compensation Is Awarded in a Comparative Fault Case

California divides damages into two categories, and understanding these is crucial for plaintiffs seeking to recover compensation for an injury:

• Economic Damages: Provable financial losses, such as medical expenses (past/future), lost wages, loss of earning capacity, and other out-of-pocket losses
• Non-Economic Damages: Intangible losses, such as pain and suffering, emotional distress, disfigurement, or loss of enjoyment of life

Recovering damages involves navigating the legal process to obtain compensation from the responsible parties, depending on the type of damages and the defendants’ share of liability.

CACI 3902 outlines categories of damages, which are further defined by Prop 51. According to Prop 51, economic damages are considered joint and several, meaning the full amount can be collected from any single defendant. However, non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, are several, and each defendant is responsible only for their specific percentage share.

Example: If Defendant A is 25% at fault and Defendant B is 75% at fault, and the jury awards $200,000 in economic damages and $100,000 in non-economic damages, then:

• You can collect all $200,000 economic damages from either Defendant A or B (they can sort out the contribution later).
• But you can collect only $25,000 in non-economic damages from Defendant A and $75,000 of non-economic damages from Defendant B (their respective shares).

What to Know About California’s Comparative Negligence Laws

Jury Instructions When Assigning Fault – CACI 405 and 406

The CACI instructions accurately reflect the shared causes often present in real-world accidents and incidents.

• CACI 405 guides jurors on how to assess a plaintiff’s negligence and subsequently reduce damages. 
• CACI 406 details the process of comparing fault among multiple defendants and non-parties, and then allocating responsibility accordingly.

Prop 51 and How Damages Are Collected Among Multiple Defendants

In California, Proposition 51, modified the application of joint-and-several liability. This legal framework can significantly influence litigation strategies, settlement negotiations, and decisions regarding who to name as a defendant.

For economic damages, such as medical bills, property damage, and lost wages, joint-and-several liability still applies, meaning any single at-fault defendant can be held responsible for 100% of these losses. 

However, for non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, liability is now shared, limiting each defendant’s responsibility to their assessed percentage of fault. When more than one person is involved in a lawsuit, a court or jury determines each party’s percentage of fault and apportions damages accordingly. 

Prop 213 and Uninsured Drivers

Proposition 213 (Civil Code § 3333.4) often prevents uninsured drivers from recovering non-economic damages, like pain and suffering, even if another driver was primarily at fault. However, exceptions exist, for instance, when the at-fault driver was intoxicated.

The Statute of Limitations

In California, most personal injury lawsuits must be initiated within two years of the date of the injury. However, if a claim is against a public entity, such as a car accident involving a city vehicle or a bicycle accident caused by an unpatched pothole, the filing period is significantly shorter.

To file a lawsuit, a government claim must first be submitted within six months. Failure to meet this statute of limitations will result in your claim being barred.

Other Types of Comparative Negligence Laws

States apply different standards for negligence. Some follow a modified comparative negligence standard, which bars plaintiffs from recovering damages if they are found to be 50% or more at fault, although specific thresholds can vary.

Some states follow a contributory negligence standard, which completely prevents recovery even if the plaintiff is only slightly responsible. California, however, operates under a pure comparative negligence standard and does not follow either of these approaches.

Modified Comparative Negligence

In states that apply modified comparative negligence, a plaintiff may still recover damages if their assigned blame falls below a threshold of either 50% or 51%, depending on the particular state’s statutes. For example, Colorado, Tennessee, and Utah adhere to the 50% rule, whereas states such as Missouri and Nevada observe the 51% rule.

Contributory Negligence

In states that observe contributory negligence, a plaintiff cannot recover any damages if they are found to be even 1% at fault. This rule is applied in Alabama, the District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia.

Examples of Personal Injury Cases Involving Being Partially at Fault

Here are some examples of how pure comparative negligence applies in California personal injury cases, including motor vehicle accidents.

Auto Accidents

California’s pure comparative negligence system applies regardless of whether the crash involved two cars, a rideshare vehicle, or a commercial truck. Insurance companies assess fault in such accidents by examining evidence, statements, and relevant laws to establish liability and adjust claims accordingly.

Driver negligence frequently leads to shared fault in most car accident cases. For instance, if a jury awards $100,000 in damages, but finds the defendant 70% at fault for speeding and the plaintiff 30% partially responsible for not wearing a seatbelt, which would have minimized injury severity, the plaintiff would receive the reduced amount of $70,000.

Premises Liability

Following a slip-and-fall accident or another incident that occurs on private or public property, injured victims can pursue compensation. However, the property owner might claim that the plaintiff should have been paying attention to warning signs or that the hazards were “obvious.”

However, the property owner can still be held responsible if they did not reasonably inspect and address hazards. Under comparative fault, if the courts or a jury find the plaintiff partially at fault, compensation will be reduced.

Product Liability

In California, product manufacturers and retailers are held “strictly liable” for injuries caused by defective products. This differs from other accidents, which are typically governed by the law of negligence.

Therefore, if an accident results due to a defective product, but the plaintiff is also partially responsible, recoverable damages will be reduced proportionally. Strict liability applies to the following types of product issues:

• manufacturing defects
• design defects
• inadequate warning defects

Multi-Defendant Scenarios

When multiple defendants are involved, like a negligent driver and a roadway contractor, the jury uses CACI 406 to apportion responsibility among two parties or more, defendants, and even non-parties. Proposition 51 then determines how the plaintiff’s damages are awarded.

Evidence That Affects Fault When Multiple Parties Are Involved

Insurance adjusters seek facts to diminish their insured’s fault and reassign liability. In California, fault can be divided by any percentage, so the insurance company might contend for a greater share of fault on the plaintiff or another party. Evidence that contributes to assigning blame includes:

• Accident Scene Documentation: skid marks, debris fields, surveillance footage, weather, and lighting
• Police Reports and Incident Logs: police reports; for premises cases, inspection/sweep logs; for commercial vehicles, telematics/maintenance
• Medical Records: continuous documentation tying sustained injuries to the incident, reducing arguments that the victim was already suffering an injury from another event
• Reconstruction Experts: explain visibility, stopping distances, timing, and foreseeability to prove how and why the incident occurred

How Lawyers Present Comparative Negligence at Trial

Experienced California personal injury attorneys understand how comparative negligence laws are applied and work tirelessly to advocate for our clients’ best interests. Here’s how they can approach such cases involving shared fault:

• Liability Storytelling: Clearly demonstrate how the defendant’s actions were the substantial factor in causing the harm, aligning with the core concepts of CACI negligence instructions
• Visual Aids: Utilize timelines and maps to help jurors visualize crucial aspects such as approach speeds, sightlines, or inspection intervals, especially in premises liability cases
• Expert Testimony: Incorporate expert insights from fields like accident reconstruction, biomechanics, building codes, and human factors to strengthen your case
• Verdict Forms: Design verdict forms that align with CACI 406, making it straightforward for jurors to assign percentages of fault to each responsible party, including the plaintiff if applicable.

A dedicated legal team provides clarity on how juries determine and decide fault and damages, which improves a victim’s chances of recovering maximum compensation.

For Legal Help, Schedule a Free Consultation with Our Personal Injury Law Firm

For specific questions regarding your case, contact Attorney Jeff Car Accident Lawyer and schedule a free case evaluation today.

Even if you are partly to blame for an incident, Jeff’s got you. Our award-winning legal team can review the details of your case, minimize the percentage of fault assigned to you, and explain how California’s comparative negligence laws work.

Contact us today.