Can Comparative Fault Reduce My Payout?
The concept of comparative fault is a frequent point of contention in motorcycle accident cases. California operates under a “pure” comparative fault system, meaning that even if you were partially at fault for the accident, you may still be entitled to recover damages. However, the amount you receive will be reduced by your percentage of fault. This can be a complex calculation, and insurance companies are adept at inflating a motorcyclist’s share of the blame to minimize their payout.
Understanding how comparative fault is determined is crucial. Insurance adjusters will scrutinize every aspect of the accident—your speed, lane positioning, helmet use, and any potential violations of traffic law—to build a case against you. They’ll look for any evidence, however small, to suggest you contributed to the collision. This is why it’s essential to have an attorney who understands these tactics and can effectively counter them.
I’ve spent over 13 years representing motorcyclists injured in San Diego, and I was previously trained by a former insurance defense attorney. This unique background gives me intimate knowledge of how insurance companies evaluate, devalue, and deny claims. I know exactly what arguments they’ll use and how to anticipate their strategies. I’ve seen firsthand how they attempt to shift blame onto riders, even in clear-cut cases of driver negligence.
What evidence do insurance companies use to establish comparative fault?
Insurance companies will gather any evidence they can to support a claim of comparative fault. This includes the police report, witness statements, photographs of the accident scene, and your medical records. They will also often attempt to obtain your motorcycle’s Event Data Recorder (EDR) data, which can reveal your speed and braking habits. They may even hire accident reconstruction experts to analyze the crash and determine the contributing factors.
Crucially, they will also look for any statements you made at the scene of the accident or to the insurance adjuster. Even seemingly innocuous comments can be twisted and used against you later. For example, admitting to going “a little fast” could be interpreted as an admission of negligence, even if you were still well within the speed limit.
It’s important to remember that the police report is not the final word. It often contains errors or incomplete information. An experienced attorney will conduct a thorough independent investigation to gather all relevant evidence and challenge any inaccuracies in the insurance company’s findings.
How is my percentage of fault determined in a motorcycle accident case?
Determining your percentage of fault is a fact-specific inquiry that will ultimately be decided by a jury if the case goes to trial. The jury will consider all the evidence presented and weigh the negligence of both parties. Factors considered include whether you were speeding, lane splitting illegally, distracted, or violated any other traffic laws.
California’s Civil Code section 1714 establishes the legal framework for comparative negligence. The jury will assign a percentage of fault to each driver, and your recovery will be reduced by your assigned percentage. For example, if you are found to be 20% at fault, you will only receive 80% of your total damages.
It’s important to note that the insurance company has the burden of proving your negligence. They must present evidence to support their claim that you contributed to the accident. A skilled attorney can effectively challenge their evidence and argue for a lower percentage of fault.
Can I still recover damages if I was mostly at fault for the accident?
Yes, even if you were mostly at fault for the accident, you may still be entitled to recover some damages under California’s pure comparative fault system. However, your recovery will be significantly reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if you were 90% at fault, you would only receive 10% of your total damages.
While a 10% recovery may not seem substantial, it can still be enough to cover some of your medical bills and other expenses. Furthermore, even a small recovery can be beneficial, especially if you have significant injuries and ongoing medical needs.
The key is to have an attorney who can effectively negotiate with the insurance company and present a strong case for minimizing your percentage of fault. They can also explore other potential sources of recovery, such as uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage or coverage from other responsible parties.
What role does my helmet use play in determining comparative fault?
California is a universal helmet law state, meaning that all riders and passengers are required to wear a safety helmet that meets DOT standards. While wearing a helmet is legally required, a violation of the helmet law does not automatically establish fault for the accident. However, defense counsel may attempt to use the lack of a helmet to argue for a reduction in damages, particularly regarding head or neck injuries.
They will argue that your injuries would have been less severe if you had been wearing a helmet. This is based on the principle of mitigation of damages. However, an experienced attorney can counter this argument by presenting evidence that your injuries were caused by the negligence of the other driver, regardless of whether you were wearing a helmet.
CVC § 27803 outlines the helmet requirements in California. It’s important to remember that the primary cause of your injuries is the other driver’s negligence, and the lack of a helmet should not be used to unfairly reduce your recovery.
What if the other driver was DUI? Does that eliminate comparative fault?
If the other driver was driving under the influence (DUI), it can significantly strengthen your case and potentially eliminate or substantially reduce any claim of comparative fault. Driving under the influence is a clear act of negligence, and it demonstrates a reckless disregard for the safety of others.
In cases involving DUI, the jury may be more likely to assign the majority of the fault to the impaired driver. Furthermore, proving intoxication or ‘malice’ allows for the pursuit of exemplary (punitive) damages, designed to punish the defendant and increase the total recovery beyond standard medical and wage losses. CVC § 23152(a) defines the unlawful act of driving under the influence.
However, even in DUI cases, it’s still possible for the insurance company to argue that you contributed to the accident in some way. Therefore, it’s still important to have an attorney who can effectively investigate the accident and present a strong case for minimizing your percentage of fault.
What should I do if the insurance company claims I am at fault for the accident?
If the insurance company claims you are at fault for the accident, it’s crucial to consult with an attorney immediately. Do not attempt to negotiate with the insurance company on your own. They are experts at minimizing payouts, and they will likely take advantage of your lack of legal knowledge.
An attorney can conduct a thorough investigation of the accident, gather all relevant evidence, and challenge any inaccuracies in the insurance company’s findings. They can also negotiate with the insurance company on your behalf and fight to protect your rights.
Remember, you have the right to seek compensation for your injuries, even if you were partially at fault for the accident. An experienced attorney can help you navigate the complex legal process and maximize your recovery.
What if the other driver had no insurance?
If the other driver was uninsured, you may be able to recover damages through your own Uninsured Motorist (UM) coverage. California law requires insurers to offer UM coverage. This coverage protects you in the event you are hit by a driver with no insurance.
UM claims can be complex, and the insurance company may attempt to deny or undervalue your claim. An experienced attorney can help you navigate the UM claim process and fight for the full amount of compensation you deserve. Ins. Code § 11580.2 outlines the requirements for UM coverage in California.
It’s important to act quickly, as there are strict deadlines for filing a UM claim. Contact an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options.
How long do I have to file a lawsuit for a motorcycle accident in California?
California law provides a **two-year** window from the date of the motorcycle accident to file a lawsuit for personal injury. Because evidence at a crash scene—such as skid marks or GoPro footage—can disappear quickly, immediate filing is critical to preserve the integrity of the claim. CCP § 335.1 outlines the statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
Waiting too long to file a lawsuit can result in the permanent loss of your right to recover damages. Therefore, it’s crucial to consult with an attorney as soon as possible to discuss your options and ensure that your claim is filed within the statute of limitations.
Don’t let the insurance company intimidate you or delay your recovery. Contact me today for a free consultation, and let me help you protect your rights.
