distracted
After an accident, a lot of people assume a personal injury claim is an all-or-nothing situation: either the other person is at fault, or you get nothing. In California, that’s usually not how it works.
California follows a rule called pure comparative negligence. It matters because it can affect your compensation even if the insurance company argues you were partly responsible.
If you were hurt in or near La Crescenta-Montrose, understanding comparative fault can help you avoid common mistakes and recognize when an insurer may be trying to shift blame unfairly.
For local support, you can learn more or speak with a La Crescenta-Montrose personal injury attorney.
What is pure comparative negligence?
Pure comparative negligence means your compensation can be reduced by your percentage of fault but you can still recover damages even if you were mostly at fault.
Why insurers love comparative fault arguments
Insurance adjusters often bring up comparative negligence early because it’s one of the fastest ways to reduce what they pay. They may frame your actions as careless even if the other driver/property owner clearly created the dangerous situation.
Common blame-shifting examples include:
- “You were speeding, so you caused the crash.”
- “You looked down for a second.”
- “You should’ve seen the hazard.”
- “You waited too long to get medical care.”
- “Your injuries were pre-existing.”
Some of these claims can be legitimate in specific situations but many are exaggerated or based on partial information.
How fault is actually determined
Fault can come from many sources, not just someone’s opinion at the scene. Evidence often includes:
- Police reports and diagrams
- Photos/video (dashcam, security footage, traffic cameras)
- Vehicle damage patterns (impact points can tell a story)
- Witness statements
- Cell phone records (when relevant and obtainable)
- Medical records linking the crash to your injuries
- Expert analysis (accident reconstruction, human factors)
Because comparative fault is a percentage, details matter. A small fact like timing, visibility, or signage can shift fault significantly.
Comparative fault applies in more than car accidents
Comparative negligence can apply to many personal injury cases, including:
- Slip and falls (Did you ignore a warning sign? Was the hazard obvious?)
- Dog bites (Were you trespassing? Did you provoke the dog?)
- Bicycle/pedestrian crashes (Were you in a crosswalk? Did a driver fail to yield?)
- Premises liability (Did the property owner have time to fix the danger?)
So even if your accident wasn’t on the road, the same concept may affect your case value.
What you can do now to protect your claim
If you’re dealing with an injury claim and don’t want comparative fault to quietly shrink your settlement, these steps help:
- Get medical care and follow-up
Gaps in treatment are often used to argue your injuries “weren’t that bad” or weren’t caused by the accident. - Document everything early
Photos of the scene, hazards, vehicle positions, visible injuries, and anything that shows lighting/weather conditions can be huge. - Be careful with statements
Avoid saying things like “I’m fine” or “It was my fault” in texts, recorded calls, or casual conversations especially while you’re still shaken up. - Track how the injury affects your day-to-day life
Pain journals, missed activities, and work limitations help support non-economic damages like pain and suffering. - Don’t assume partial fault means you should accept a low offer
Even if you share some responsibility, it doesn’t automatically justify a quick, discounted settlement.
When it’s worth talking to a personal injury lawyer
If an insurer is pushing blame onto you, disputing your injuries, or downplaying long-term impact, it may be time to get guidance especially when the percentage of fault becomes the negotiation battleground.
Recent Comments