Understanding Comparative Negligence in Personal Injury Cases

Fault in accidents isn’t always straightforward. Sometimes, both parties involved in an accident can share partial liability.

When a plaintiff is found to be partially responsible for their own damages, the court often reduces their financial recovery by their percentage of fault, under a tort law principle known as comparative negligence.

What is comparative negligence in personal injury cases? Explore this concept below, then consult a personal injury lawyer in Wichita, KS, to learn how it may impact your case.

Understanding Kansas’ Modified Comparative Negligence Laws

The comparative negligence principle enables courts and insurance companies to reduce a plaintiff’s financial recovery by their own percentage of fault in the accident. While every state approaches negligence differently, most U.S. states follow either a “pure” or a “modified” comparative negligence law.

• Pure comparative negligence states allow all injured parties in an accident to seek compensation, even if they bear the majority of the fault. Their damages and compensation would then be reduced by their percentage of fault.
• Modified comparative negligence states allow an injured party to recover financial damages only if their own fault is less than 50% (or 51%, depending on the state).

Kansas follows a modified comparative negligence system with a 50% bar rule. This means you can only seek damages in a personal injury claim if you are 49% or less at fault. Your financial payout would be reduced by your percentage of blame.

How Fault Is Assigned in Accidents

The fault allocation percentage you receive in an accident can significantly impact both your ability to seek compensation and the value of damages you can seek. Courts and insurance companies determine fault percentage by reviewing both the intricate details of the accident and the fuller picture of how the accident happened, including:

• The exact sequence of events
• Whether any laws were broken (such as traffic law violations)
• How each party responded to the events in the accident
• Whether relevant safety equipment was used
• Whether either party was impaired or distracted
• Whether any relevant signs or warnings were posted

Examples of Comparative Negligence in Kansas Accident Cases

Comparative negligence in personal injury cases can affect outcomes differently depending on the case’s details. Here are a few examples to help you understand this concept better:

• Car accident case: Driver B rear-ended Driver A when Driver A suddenly stopped for a deer running out into the road. Driver B would normally assume majority fault, but Driver A’s brake lights weren’t working. The insurance company assigns shared liability: 40% to Driver B and 60% to Driver A, barring Driver A from seeking compensation.
• Slip-and-fall accident: A customer at a store slipped on a puddle caused by a leaky refrigerator that had been present for hours. The store was largely at fault, but the customer was assigned 20% of the blame because they were texting while walking, preventing them from noticing the puddle.

Consult a Personal Injury Attorney in Wichita

Whether you need help understanding the types of evidence or how comparative negligence works in personal injury cases, Larry Wall Trial Law offers experienced legal guidance. Call 316-265-6000 for a consultation.