Comparative Fault
Comparative Fault is a legal doctrine used to assign responsibility in a civil case based on the degree of fault of each party involved. This concept is particularly relevant in personal injury and tort cases, where more than one party may share liability for the harm or damages incurred.
Under the Comparative Fault system, the total damages awarded to a plaintiff may be reduced by the percentage of fault attributable to that plaintiff. For example, if a jury determines that a plaintiff is 20% at fault for an accident and the total damages are assessed at $100,000, the plaintiff would only recover $80,000 from the defendant, as their award is reduced by their own percentage of fault.
There are two main forms of Comparative Fault:
-
Pure Comparative Fault: In jurisdictions that follow this approach, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault. The recovery amount will simply be reduced by their percentage of fault. For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $50,000 but is found to be 70% at fault, they would receive $15,000.
-
Modified Comparative Fault: This approach sets a threshold that prevents a plaintiff from recovering damages if their fault exceeds a certain percentage, commonly 50% or 51%. If the plaintiff’s fault is above this threshold, they are barred from recovery. For example, if a plaintiff is 55% at fault, they would not receive any damages, regardless of the total assessed damages.
Understanding Comparative Fault is essential for individuals involved in legal disputes, as it directly impacts the potential compensation they may receive based on their level of contribution to the harm suffered.
« Back to Glossary Index