How Comparative Negligence Affects Truck Accident Claims in California
If you get injured or sustain property damage in a trucking accident in California and need to file a claim, anticipate the trucking company fighting back. Truck companies wish to protect their own profits as much as possible by reducing and rejecting accident claim payouts. One defense that you may encounter is the comparative negligence doctrine.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Negligence is the foundation of most personal injury claims in California. It refers to the failure to act with proper or reasonable care, resulting in injury or harm to others. Proving negligence in an accident case requires clear and convincing evidence that the accused party or defendant owed the victim a duty of care, breached this duty of care and caused the accident.
In California, more than one party may be held liable, or legally and financially responsible, for a traffic accident. If two or more parties share fault, the concept of comparative negligence can apply to the case. This is a principle used by the courts to reduce the amount of damages, or financial compensation, that can be recovered by a victim or plaintiff in a personal injury claim based on his or her negligence in connection to an accident.
How Can Comparative Negligence Affect a Truck Accident Claim in California?
If applied to a case, the legal theory of comparative negligence can reduce a plaintiff’s damages by an amount equivalent to his or her percentage of fault for the accident. If the plaintiff in a truck accident claim is assigned 20 percent of the fault, for example, but a trucking company is allocated 80 percent, the plaintiff’s damage award would be reduced by a matching 20 percent.
In this example, the courts would reduce a $100,000 judgment awarded to a plaintiff by the plaintiff’s 20 percent of fault ($20,000). This would result in a final judgment of $80,000 for the trucking company or defendant’s negligence. The comparative negligence defense can substantially limit a crash victim’s financial recovery if he or she is apportioned a degree of fault.
What Does the “Pure” Part of California’s Comparative Negligence Law Mean?
California’s comparative negligence law is found in Civil Code Section 1714. This law states that “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his or her willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his or her want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his or her property or person.”
California has a pure comparative negligence law, meaning there is no limit or cap on the degree of negligence a plaintiff can be assigned, short of 100 percent. If a plaintiff is found to be 99 percent or less responsible for a trucking accident in California, he or she can still recover at least partial damages.
A modified comparative negligence state, on the other hand, has a cap on the amount that a plaintiff can be at fault and still recover damages. If this limit – which is generally around 50 percent or the majority share of fault – is met, the plaintiff will lose all eligibility for financial compensation. In California, injured accident victims do not need to worry about a comparative negligence cap.
When to Contact a Truck Accident Attorney
If a trucking company or its insurance provider is attempting to blame you for a truck accident, even in part, contact an experienced truck accident lawyer in California for assistance. Your lawyer can investigate the crash and collect evidence against a trucking company or another defendant, as well as contest the comparative negligence defense, to protect your right to recover compensation.
