Understanding Comparative Fault: A Guide to Liability and Recovery
Definition & Meaning
Comparative fault is a legal principle used in tort law that allows for the comparison of fault between a plaintiff and a defendant in an accident. This doctrine helps determine how much each party contributed to the cause of an injury. If both parties are found to be negligent, the plaintiff's compensation for damages may be reduced based on their percentage of fault. There are two main approaches to comparative fault:
- Pure comparative fault: The plaintiff can recover damages regardless of their level of fault.
- Modified comparative fault: The plaintiff cannot recover damages if they are found to be more than 50 percent at fault.
Legal Use & context
Comparative fault is primarily used in civil law cases, particularly in personal injury claims, such as car accidents, slip and fall incidents, and product liability cases. Understanding this doctrine is essential for both plaintiffs and defendants, as it influences the outcome of damage awards. Users can benefit from legal templates available through US Legal Forms to help navigate these cases effectively.
Real-world examples
Here are a couple of examples of abatement:
Example 1: A driver runs a red light and collides with another vehicle. The court finds the driver 70 percent at fault and the other driver 30 percent at fault. If the total damages are $100,000, the at-fault driver would pay $70,000, while the other driver would receive $30,000.
Example 2: A person slips and falls in a store due to a wet floor. The store is found to be 80 percent at fault for not placing warning signs, while the injured person is found to be 20 percent at fault for not paying attention. If the damages are $50,000, the injured person would receive $40,000 after their fault is deducted. (hypothetical example)