When we talk about personal injury law and motor vehicle accidents, we usually talk about cases in which one party was clearly at fault and the injured person did nothing wrong. For instance, you might think of a driver who is stopped at a red light when a drunk driver fails to apply his brakes and crashes into the back of the first driver’s car. There are, unfortunately, many such accidents.
However, many accidents aren’t so straightforward, In many cases, it’s difficult to tell who was at fault. In many cases, more than one party holds some of the fault.
Comparative negligence
Texas law deals with some of these trickier situations by using a legal principle known as comparative negligence. In a motor vehicle accident case involving more than one driver who was at fault, Texas courts review the evidence and assign a percentage of fault to each party.
So long as one party’s percentage of fault was no more than 50%, they can recover compensation from the other party (or parties). However, the injured person’s recovery is reduced in proportion to their share of fault.
Example
To illustrate how comparative negligence might work, imagine a San Antonio road at night where Fred is driving eastbound and Barney is driving westbound. Fred is looking at his phone when he should be looking at the road ahead of him, and he crosses over the center line. His car collides with Barney’s car. Barney is badly injured, and sues Fred for $100,000 in damages.
When examining the evidence, the court finds that Fred holds most of the blame for the accident, but that Barney contributed fault because he did not have his headlights on at the time of the accident. The court determines that Fred holds 75% of the fault and Barney holds 25% of the fault.
Because Barney’s share of fault is less than 50%, he can collect compensation from Fred. However, his compensation is reduced according to his share of the fault. This means his compensation must be reduced by 25%. Instead of collecting $100,000, he can collect only $75,000.
Offense and defense
Note that comparative negligence can be a tool for either side in a personal injury lawsuit. In our example above, Fred might rely on comparative negligence to reduce the amount of money he has to pay. Similarly, Barney might argue that comparative negligence entitles him to some compensation even if he was 49% at fault for the accident. If Barney suffered $100,000 in damages, he needs all the help he can get, and 49% of $100,000 is better than nothing.
