One of the most common questions we hear from accident victims is: "I was told I was partially at fault — does that mean I can't recover anything?" In California, the answer is almost always no. California's comparative negligence system means you can recover compensation even if you share some of the blame.
Pure Comparative Negligence — California's Rule
California follows the doctrine of pure comparative fault (California Civil Code § 1431.2 and Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804 (1975)). Under this system, your compensation is reduced proportionally by your percentage of fault — but is never eliminated entirely, no matter how much fault is attributed to you.
Example
Your total damages are $100,000. A jury finds the other driver 70%% at fault and you 30%% at fault. You recover $70,000 (your damages minus your 30%% share of fault).
Even if you were found 90%% at fault and the other driver was only 10%% at fault, you could still recover 10%% of your damages. That's pure comparative fault — unlike "modified" comparative fault states that cut off recovery at 51%%.
How Fault Is Determined
Fault is determined based on evidence, not the police report's initial assessment. Relevant factors include:
- Traffic camera and surveillance footage
- Witness statements
- Physical evidence (skid marks, vehicle damage patterns)
- Expert accident reconstruction
- Traffic violations cited in the police report
- Cell phone records
- Black box / EDR data
Police reports are not final. A police report may note that you received a citation, but that doesn't determine civil liability. A citation is evidence, not a verdict. Civil fault percentages are determined by the jury — or negotiated between the parties.
How Insurers Use Comparative Fault Against You
Insurance adjusters routinely argue that you were partially at fault — even when you weren't — as a way to reduce what they owe you. Common tactics include:
- "You should have been able to avoid the collision"
- "You were driving slightly over the speed limit"
- "You weren't watching where you were going"
- Pointing to a minor citation you received at the scene
Don't admit fault at the scene. Statements like "I'm sorry" or "I should have braked sooner" can be used to assign comparative fault to you. Stay polite but say as little as possible about the accident itself.
Multiple Defendants and Apportionment
Proposition 51 (California Civil Code § 1431.2) modified California law for cases with multiple defendants. For non-economic damages (pain and suffering), each defendant is now only responsible for their own proportional share of fault — not jointly and severally liable for the entire amount. This matters in cases with, for example, a truck driver and a trucking company as co-defendants.
For economic damages (medical bills, lost wages), multiple defendants remain jointly and severally liable, meaning you can collect the full amount from any one of them.
Proving Your Case Despite Comparative Fault
An experienced attorney can:
- Investigate the accident thoroughly to assign fault accurately
- Hire accident reconstruction experts to challenge the insurer's version of events
- Gather evidence the other side ignores or tries to downplay
- Negotiate fault percentages to maximize your recovery
- Present the strongest possible case to a jury if settlement fails
Bottom Line
Even if you think you were partly at fault, you may still have a valuable claim. Don't let an insurance adjuster talk you out of consulting an attorney. At Gonzales Law Offices, your first consultation is free and we'll give you an honest assessment of your case.
Free case review with Attorney Mark Gonzales. Serving the entire Inland Empire. No fee unless we win.
📞 Call 909-587-6336