MENU
- Home
- Overview
- Attorneys
- Practice Areas
- Firm News
- Blog
- Contact
After a car accident, it often seems like only one person caused it. Yet, multiple parties can share responsibility for what happened. In these situations, comparative fault laws determine how damages are distributed.
Each state approaches this issue differently, so those laws dictate how things play out. It is important to be aware of how these laws could affect compensation for injuries or property damage after a crash, to manage expectations about the damages you might be entitled to.
Comparative fault, sometimes called “comparative negligence,” is a legal standard used to assign responsibility when more than one party contributes to a traffic accident. Under this approach, a driver who bears partial responsibility may still recover damages, but the compensation is reduced based on that driver’s percentage of fault.
For example, if a driver is found to be 30% at fault for a crash and the total damages amount to $100,000, that driver would be eligible to recover only $70,000. The remaining $30,000 would be attributed to the driver’s own share of responsibility. This method replaces older systems where a party found even slightly at fault could be barred from recovering anything.
There are two main types of comparative fault systems: “pure” comparative fault and “modified” comparative fault:
Delaware follows a modified comparative fault system with a 50% bar rule. This means that a driver may recover compensation if they are 50% or less at fault for an accident. However, if the driver is found to be more than 51% responsible, they cannot recover damages from the other party.
For instance, if one driver failed to yield and the other was speeding, both actions may be considered negligent. The court or insurance adjusters would evaluate the degree of negligence attributed to each individual.
Insurance adjusters assess comparative fault by reviewing all available evidence. They may examine traffic citations, surveillance footage, or statements from those involved. Adjusters then assign a percentage of responsibility to each party based on their findings. If both parties dispute liability, the matter may proceed to court, where a judge or jury determines the final allocation of fault.
Yes, comparative fault often influences settlement discussions. If an injured driver is partially responsible for the crash, the opposing party’s insurance provider may reduce the settlement offer accordingly. Your lawyer may present evidence to argue for a lower percentage of fault on your behalf.
The negotiation process involves a careful review of fault, damages, and liability. Comparative fault principles are central to these discussions, and a fair resolution often depends on clear documentation and evidence.
Comparative fault promotes a more balanced approach to liability by holding each party accountable for their share of responsibility. Knowing how this standard works can help you understand what to expect when pursuing a claim after a traffic accident.
The allocation of fault not only affects financial recovery but also the strength of any legal case that may be brought. Our team uses detailed records and evidence to advocate for a favorable fault determination during settlement talks and, if necessary, litigation.
Our experienced New Castle car accident lawyers at Jacobs & Crumplar, P.A. help clients establish liability in challenging legal claims. For a free consultation, call our New Castle and Millsboro, Delaware offices at 302-656-5445 or contact us online. We proudly serve clients in New Castle County, Kent County, and Sussex County.