San Diego Injury Attorney representing San Diego County commercial trucking victims while explaining: Can I Still Recover Compensation If I Was Partly Responsible?

Can I Still Recover Compensation If I Was Partly Responsible?

The call came in late on a Tuesday: a frantic message from a woman named David, whose husband, a carpenter, had been broadsided by a semi-truck on the I-8 near Mission Valley. He’d suffered a broken femur, a concussion, and internal injuries, and was facing a mountain of medical bills—already exceeding $123,892. The initial police report indicated David‘s husband may have drifted slightly into the truck’s lane while adjusting his radio. The trucking company’s insurance adjuster was already hinting that any recovery would be significantly reduced, citing David‘s husband’s potential negligence.

Confidential Confidential Case Review • No Fee Unless We Win

Attorney Richard Morse a San Diego Injury Attorney

This scenario—a client partially at fault in an accident—is incredibly common. Many people believe that even a small degree of responsibility automatically disqualifies them from receiving compensation. That’s simply not true in California. Our state operates under a principle of “pure comparative negligence,” which means you can recover damages even if you were 99% at fault. However, the amount you receive will be reduced proportionally to your level of fault.

Understanding how comparative negligence works is crucial. The insurance company will aggressively attempt to assign as much blame to my client as possible, minimizing their payout. They’ll scrutinize the police report, witness statements, and even your own statements to build a case against you. That’s why it’s essential to have experienced legal counsel on your side from the very beginning.

I’ve been practicing personal injury law in San Diego for over 13 years, and I was fortunate enough to be trained by a former insurance defense attorney. This experience gave me intimate knowledge of how insurance companies evaluate, devalue, and deny claims. I understand their tactics, their strategies, and their ultimate goal: to pay as little as possible. I leverage this knowledge to protect my clients and ensure they receive the full compensation they deserve.

What happens if the insurance company claims I was partially at fault?

San Diego Injury Attorney representing San Diego County commercial trucking victims while explaining: Can I Still Recover Compensation If I Was Partly Responsible?

The insurance company will conduct a thorough investigation to determine the percentage of fault each party bears. This often involves reviewing the police report, interviewing witnesses, and examining any available evidence, such as dashcam footage or vehicle data recorders. They will then present their findings, typically in the form of a settlement offer that reflects their assessment of your fault. It’s important to remember that this offer is almost always lower than what you’re actually entitled to.

Don’t accept the first offer. In fact, don’t accept *any* offer without first consulting with an attorney. I will independently investigate the accident, gather additional evidence, and build a strong case to counter the insurance company’s claims. This may involve hiring accident reconstruction experts, obtaining medical records, and interviewing independent witnesses.

The final determination of fault is usually made by a jury, if the case goes to trial. The jury will weigh the evidence and assign a percentage of fault to each party. Your compensation will then be reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if your total damages are $100,000 and you are found to be 30% at fault, you will only recover $70,000.

How is my percentage of fault determined?

California Civil Code § 1714 outlines the principles of comparative negligence. Several factors are considered when determining fault, including:

  • Negligence per se: Did either party violate a traffic law? For example, was the truck driver speeding (CVC § 22406) or did you fail to yield the right-of-way?
  • Duty of care: Did each party exercise reasonable care under the circumstances?
  • Causation: Was the alleged negligence a substantial factor in causing the accident?
  • Evidence: What does the evidence show? This includes police reports, witness statements, and physical evidence.

Insurance companies will often focus on any actions you took that could have contributed to the accident, even if they were minor. They may argue that you were distracted, speeding, or failed to maintain a proper lookout. It’s crucial to have an attorney who can challenge these claims and present a compelling case on your behalf.

What if I’m not sure if I was at fault?

If you’re unsure whether you were at fault, it’s even more important to consult with an attorney. I can review the facts of your case and provide you with an honest assessment of your legal options. I’ll explain the potential risks and benefits of pursuing a claim and help you make an informed decision.

Remember, the insurance company is not on your side. Their goal is to minimize their payout, and they will often take advantage of your uncertainty or lack of legal knowledge. Don’t try to navigate this complex process on your own. Let me handle the negotiations and protect your rights.

Can I still sue the trucking company if I was partly responsible and have workers’ compensation?

Yes, you can. In California, workers’ compensation is generally the exclusive remedy against your employer. However, you can still pursue a separate civil claim against a negligent third party, such as the trucking company, even if you are receiving workers’ compensation benefits. This is outlined in Labor Code § 3852.

This is a common scenario in truck accident cases, as the truck driver is often an employee of a trucking company. I can help you determine whether a third-party claim is viable and pursue the maximum compensation available to you.

What if the truck driver was also at fault?

If the truck driver was also at fault, you can pursue a claim against both the driver and the trucking company. Under the doctrine of vicarious liability (respondeat superior), the trucking company is responsible for the negligent acts of its drivers committed within the scope of their employment (Civ. Code § 2338). This means you can recover damages from both parties, potentially increasing your overall compensation.

I have extensive experience litigating claims against trucking companies and their drivers. I understand the complex legal issues involved and can effectively advocate for your rights.

What if the insurance company tries to delay the claim?

Delay tactics are a common strategy used by insurance companies to devalue claims. They may take a long time to respond to your requests, ask for excessive documentation, or deny your claim outright. These tactics are designed to frustrate you and force you to settle for less than you deserve.

I can help you navigate these delays and ensure that your claim is processed promptly and fairly. I will aggressively pursue your claim and fight back against any unreasonable delays or denials. I have a proven track record of success in litigating truck accident cases in San Diego and will not hesitate to file a lawsuit if necessary.

Authority Link Reference Table

Authority Link Reference Table
Statutory Authority Description
CCP § 335.1 Sets the 2-year limitations period for most California personal injury claims. In San Diego trucking cases, preserving evidence early is critical because carriers and insurers often move quickly to control records and narrative.
Gov. Code § 911.2 Requires timely presentation of claims against public entities (often 6 months). This matters when a crash involves roadway design, construction zones, transit agencies, or city/county responsibility.
CCP § 2017.010 Defines the scope of discovery. In trucking litigation, discovery targets driver logs/ELD data, qualification files, inspection/maintenance records, dispatch communications, and safety program documents.
CCP § 377.60 Identifies who has standing to bring a wrongful death claim. This is essential for fatal commercial vehicle crashes where multiple family members may have rights.
CCP § 377.30 Survival action authority. In fatal trucking cases, this can apply to claims the decedent could have brought (often tied to pre-death harms and litigation strategy alongside wrongful death).
Civ. Code § 1714 California’s general negligence framework. Trucking defendants often use comparative-fault narratives (lane position, following distance, speed, “cut-off” claims) to reduce claimed damages.
Evid. Code § 669 Negligence per se when a safety law is violated. This is frequently argued in trucking cases when FMCSA rules or CVC safety provisions are breached.
Civ. Code § 2338 Vicarious liability principles (respondeat superior). Critical when proving a motor carrier, delivery company, or fleet operator is responsible for a driver’s on-duty conduct.
CVC § 22406 Maximum speed limits for certain commercial vehicles and vehicles towing. Supports liability arguments and reconstruction when speed/conditions are disputed.
CVC § 34500 California’s commercial vehicle safety/inspection framework. Often relevant to maintenance failures, equipment defects, and inspection noncompliance.
Civ. Code § 3294 Punitive damages standard (oppression, fraud, or malice). Can matter in extreme trucking conduct cases (e.g., reckless safety policy violations, egregious impairment, or intentional evidence games).
Howell v. Hamilton Meats Damages valuation authority addressing medical specials (amounts actually paid/owed). Frequently impacts settlement math in catastrophic injury cases.
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. Foundational California comparative negligence authority. Trucking defendants often argue shared fault to reduce value; this anchors the comparative-fault framework used in negotiations and trial.
Civ. Code § 1431.2 Several liability allocation for non-economic damages. Important when multiple parties share responsibility (carrier, shipper/loader, broker, maintenance vendor, public entities).
Ins. Code § 11580.2 UM/UIM statutory framework. Relevant when a truck, delivery vehicle, or other responsible party is underinsured, unidentified, or coverage disputes arise.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSA)
49 CFR Part 395 Hours-of-service rules (fatigue). Directly tied to ELD/logbook questions, forced driving, rest break violations, and crash causation analysis.
49 CFR Part 396 Inspection, repair, and maintenance duties. Central for brake failures, tire failures, equipment defects, inspection records, and maintenance contractor liability.
49 CFR Part 391 Driver qualification rules (DQ files). Supports negligent hiring/retention claims and discovery of licensing, medical certification, training, and prior safety history.
49 CFR Part 382 Controlled substances and alcohol testing rules. Relevant to post-crash testing questions, DUI/impairment claims, and carrier compliance obligations.
49 CFR Part 392 Operational driving rules (safe driving, distracted driving policies, etc.). Used to frame duty, safety standards, and negligence arguments tied to driver conduct.
49 CFR Part 393 Parts and accessories necessary for safe operation. Supports defect/equipment theories involving brakes, lights, tires, underride guards, and other safety components.
49 CFR Part 383 Commercial driver’s license (CDL) standards. Relevant to CDL impact questions, qualification issues, endorsements, and compliance expectations for commercial drivers.

Similar Posts