Comparative fault is a legal rule used to determine how much compensation an injured person can receive when they are partially responsible for their own injury. Instead of completely barring recovery, the law reduces the amount of damages based on the victim’s share of fault.
There are two main types: pure comparative fault and modified comparative fault. Under pure comparative fault, you can recover damages even if you were 99% at fault, but your recovery is reduced accordingly. Under modified comparative fault, you can only recover if your fault is below a certain threshold (often 50% or 51%).
It directly impacts the amount of money a victim can receive. Understanding the rule helps attorneys strategize negotiations and trial arguments to minimize their client’s assigned percentage of fault.
Fault is decided based on the evidence presented — including witness testimony, accident reports, and expert analysis. The jury or judge assigns a percentage of responsibility to each party involved.
Conclusion:
Comparative fault ensures that responsibility for an injury is shared fairly between all parties, but it can greatly reduce the compensation a victim receives.
It’s a rule that reduces compensation when the injured person shares blame for the accident.
No — some use contributory negligence, which can bar recovery entirely.
Pure allows recovery regardless of fault percentage; modified sets a threshold.
Typically a jury or judge based on the evidence.
What is a Class Action? A class action is a type of lawsuit where one or more people file a case on behalf of.
Did Clearpoint Cross the Line Into Unauthorized Practice of Law in an Arizona Foreclosure Case? A January 2026 court order from the United States.
Could RICO Finally Hold Big Pharma Accountable for Hidden Drug Risks? In a groundbreaking development for pharmaceutical accountability, Wisner Baum LLP has pushed a.