What is comparative negligence?

« Back to Frequently Asked Questions

I have an insurance adjuster telling me that because I fell on a sidewalk that was in need of repair that I am still partly responsible for falling, calling it comparative negligence.

A. In Washington, we use the comparative negligence system. That means that in any given situation there is 100% fault to go around. When more than one person is responsible for, or causes, an accident, then a jury will have to divide the percentage of fault that each person bears. In other words, if two people are equally at fault for an accident, then it would be 50/50. The division can be any combination as long as the total amount of fault adds up to 100%. When the plaintiff is also partly at fault, then he/she is comparatively negligent for their own injury. In that case any jury verdict or amount paid to the plaintiff would be reduced by the percentage that they are at fault. For example, if a jury awards a plaintiff $100,000 total for their injuries, but then assigns 25% fault to that plaintiff, then the plaintiff would only be entitled to $75,000 ($100,000 minus 25%).

It is common for insurance adjusters to use a comparative fault argument, even when it is not necessarily true. Just because the adjuster says you were comparatively negligent doesn’t make it true. Insurance adjusters don’t have to tell the truth. Their job is to pay you as little as possible in exchange for you signing a release. They do not have to be fair or honorable, they just have to get your signature on the paper for as cheap as they can. You don’t have to, and you shouldn’t trust them. It is a really good idea to speak to an attorney.

This information is provided by www.straighttalklaw.com, where you can order free books on Washington auto accidents, auto insurance, and other valuable legal information, offered as a public service by Jason Epstein and his law practice Premiere Law Group in Seattle, Washington.

auto accident lawyer Seattle