What follows are our general observations and opinions. This is not legal advice, it is not a definitive statement of California law, and every situation depends on its own facts.
If you were partly at fault for the accident that injured you, California does not throw your claim out. As we read the state’s approach, California applies pure comparative fault: a percentage of responsibility assigned to the injured person reduces what they recover rather than eliminating it. Someone found twenty per cent responsible recovers eighty per cent of their damages. In principle, someone found ninety per cent responsible still recovers ten.
That is a genuinely tenant-friendly — or claimant-friendly — rule compared with most of the country, where being more than half at fault often bars recovery outright. But it also means that the fight in a great many California injury cases is not about whether the other side is liable at all. It is about the percentage, and the percentage is where a lot of value quietly disappears.
How the Percentage Actually Gets Applied
The mechanics are simple enough to state. A trier of fact determines the total damages, then allocates responsibility among everyone whose conduct contributed. The claimant’s own share comes off the top. Where more than one defendant is involved, our understanding of the California framework is that economic damages — medical bills, lost earnings, the things with receipts — and non-economic damages are treated differently as between defendants, with non-economic damages generally allocated to each defendant in proportion to that defendant’s own share of fault rather than being collectible in full from any one of them.
The practical consequence is that the identity and solvency of the other responsible parties matters as much as the percentage does. A defendant with a small share of fault and a large policy is worth more than a defendant with a large share of fault and nothing behind them.
Where Adjusters Look for Your Percentage
In our experience the comparative fault argument is rarely a single dramatic point. It is assembled from small things, most of which are established long before anyone talks about settlement:
- Speed and attention in vehicle cases — a few miles per hour over the limit, or a phone record showing use around the time of impact, is enough to start the conversation.
- Seat belt use. Non-use is generally raised as a failure to mitigate the injuries rather than as a cause of the collision, and it is argued more often than people expect.
- Where a pedestrian crossed, and whether the signal was with them. Los Angeles intersections with long crossings and short signals generate a lot of these.
- Open and obvious conditions in a fall case — the spill you walked past, the step that was marked, the handrail that was there and unused.
- Gaps in medical treatment. A stretch of weeks with no visits gets characterized as either recovery or as a failure to mitigate, and both readings hurt.
- What you said at the scene. An apology offered reflexively gets quoted back later as an admission.
Why Recorded Statements Matter Here
The other driver’s insurer will often ask for a recorded statement early, sometimes within days. Our view is that this is the single most common way a claimant hands over percentage points without realizing it. The questions are not hostile; they are precise. Where were you looking, how fast were you going, when did you first see the other vehicle, had you had anything to drink, how are you feeling today. Answers given from memory, in pain, without the police report in front of you, become fixed points that are difficult to move later.
There is generally an obligation to cooperate with your own insurer. Our reading is that the position is different with the other side’s carrier, and it is worth getting advice before agreeing to that call.
Comparative Fault Is Not the Only Thing Cutting the Number
We think it is worth being straightforward about the fact that the fault percentage is applied to a figure that has usually already been reduced by other things. Medical liens and reimbursement claims come out. Prior injuries to the same body part invite an argument that some portion of the current complaint is not attributable to this accident at all. And where the responsible party is a public entity — a city, a transit agency, a school district — there are claim procedures with short deadlines that can end a case before comparative fault is ever reached.
None of that is a reason not to bring a good claim. It is a reason to understand the arithmetic at the beginning rather than being surprised by it at the end.
What Helps
The evidence that pushes a percentage down tends to be gathered in the first days, not the last. Photographs of the scene taken before anything is moved. The names of witnesses who are otherwise gone within the hour. Vehicle data where it exists. A prompt medical evaluation, both because it matters clinically and because a documented complaint on day one is harder to attribute to something else. And a consistent, unembellished account — in our experience overstatement damages a claim far more reliably than an honest admission of partial responsibility does.
Fees, and What We Will Not Tell You
We handle personal injury matters on a recovery basis: our fee comes out of any recovery rather than being paid up front, costs are handled separately, and the arrangement is set out in a written fee agreement before we begin. We are not going to put a number on what a case with a given fault split is worth. No outcome is guaranteed, past results do not predict future results, and anyone offering a figure before they have seen the medical records and the liability evidence is guessing.
If you have been told you were partly at fault and are not sure what that means for your claim, we are happy to look at it and give you a candid read. Call us at (310) 556-9692.
Related reading: our personal injury resource page, along with how medical liens affect what you actually take home — the other major deduction from a recovery; and who is responsible when you are injured on a Los Angeles sidewalk — where fault allocation between the city and an abutting owner gets complicated.
This article reflects our general views and opinions rather than legal advice, and it is not a definitive statement of California law. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our firm. Every matter turns on its own facts, and we would encourage you to speak with a lawyer about yours.
TALK TO A LOS ANGELES ATTORNEY
Tell us what is happening and we will get back to you. Your consultation is free, and we will tell you honestly whether we think you have a case worth pursuing.
