Personal injury claims in California address compensation for injuries that occur due to the negligence or intentional harm of another party. Negligence is the failure to exercise reasonable care. Intentional harm, as its name suggests, occurs when a person acts intentionally to cause harm. Common personal injury claims include slips and falls, dog bites, automobile accidents, and wrongful death. 

In order for a plaintiff to prove that he suffered a personal injury, he must show:

• The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
• The defendant breached the duty of care
• The breach was the cause of the injury
• The injury is compensable

The burden of proof for the plaintiff in a California personal injury lawsuit is “preponderance of the evidence.” This means that it is more likely than not that the defendant was responsible for the harm. This is a lower standard of proof than in criminal cases, which is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Comparative and Contributory Negligence

What happens if the injury was partly caused by the plaintiff? As an example, it’s often the case in a two-car accident that both drivers engaged in some negligent behavior. Shared fault can happen under the following circumstances:

• Rear-End Collision – A driver negligently slams into the car in front, but the vehicle in front has broken brake lights
• Pedestrian Accident – A pedestrian is hit while jaywalking, but the driver was speeding excessively and unable to stop in time
• Left-Turn Crash – While making a left turn at a green light, a driver hits an oncoming driver, but the oncoming driver was texting when hit

A finder of fact, which could be an insurance adjuster, a judge, or a jury, evaluates the facts of the situation and assesses fault. Fault is assessed by reviewing police reports, eyewitness statements, surveillance video, and other types of evidence. Let’s say that the fact finder assesses Driver A, the plaintiff, as 30% at fault and Driver B, the defendant, as 70% at fault. Even though the plaintiff has been determined to be partially at fault, he can recover damages under California’s doctrine of “pure comparative negligence.” However, Driver A’s recovery would be reduced by 30%.  

There are several other variations of pure comparative negligence. In the 21 states that have a “modified comparative negligence” rule, a plaintiff cannot recover if he was more than 50% (or in some of these states, 51%) responsible for his own injuries. Maryland, Washington, D.C., and several other states follow the “pure contributory negligence” rule. This means that a plaintiff is barred from obtaining any compensation even if he was only 1% at fault. 

Steps to Maximize Your Claim Under Comparative Negligence

It’s possible to challenge a fault determination. Here are some steps to take to maximize your claim under California’s comparative negligence rule:

• Document the accident scene with photos, videos, and witness contacts
• Seek medical care immediately 
• Avoid giving statements without legal advice
• Challenge inaccurate fault assessments at once and with evidence if possible
• Consult an experienced attorney 

Contact Earl E. Conaway, III, Today for Immediate Assistance

If you have suffered a personal injury, it’s important to be in touch with a San Luis Obispo attorney right away. Contact Earl E. Conaway, III, to see how we can help you.