Understanding California’s Comparative Fault Rule
How California's Comparative Fault Rule Affects Your Personal Injury Case in Sacramento
If you’ve been injured in an accident in Sacramento, one of the most important legal principles that may affect your case is California’s comparative fault rule. This legal standard determines how liability and compensation are allocated when multiple parties are responsible for an accident.
Whether you're dealing with a car crash, slip and fall, or defective product injury, comparative fault can directly influence how much compensation you receive, even if you were partially at fault. We’re here to explain how this law works and how it could impact your personal injury case.
What Is California’s Comparative Fault Rule?
California follows a pure comparative negligence system, as outlined in California Civil Code Section 1714. This means that in a personal injury case, each party involved can be assigned a percentage of fault, and your compensation is reduced by the amount of fault assigned to you.
For example, if you’re found to be 30% at fault for an accident, your total compensation will be reduced by 30%. So, if your damages total $100,000, you would still be eligible to recover $70,000.
Unlike some states that bar recovery if you're more than 50% at fault, California allows you to recover damages even if you were primarily responsible, meaning up to 99%, for the incident. This rule is fundamental in complex accident cases where fault is shared among multiple people or entities.
Types of Injury Cases Affected by Comparative Fault in California
California’s comparative fault law applies to a wide range of personal injury claims, including but not limited to:
- Car accidents: Fault may be shared between drivers based on factors such as speeding, distracted driving, or failing to yield.
- Motorcycle accidents: Helmet use, lane splitting, or visibility may play a role in assigning fault.
- Truck accidents: Commercial drivers, trucking companies, and even third parties could share liability.
- Product liability cases: A user may be partially at fault if they misuse the product, even if it is defective.
- Slip and fall accidents: Property owners may claim that the injured person was not paying attention or ignored posted warnings. Other personal injury cases include pedestrian accidents, dog bites, and construction site injuries.
In each of these scenarios, comparative fault can reduce your compensation, which is why it’s so important to have an attorney who can protect your share of the recovery.
Who Determines the Percentage of Fault in California Injury Cases?
The percentage of fault in a personal injury case is determined during the claims or litigation process. If your case settles outside of court, fault is usually negotiated between your attorney, the other party’s attorney, and their insurance company. If your case goes to trial, a judge or jury will assign fault percentages based on the evidence presented.
Determining fault is not always a matter of black and white. It’s a legal argument supported by facts, including witness testimony, accident reports, expert opinions, and physical evidence. We know how to present your case and reduce any unfair blame assigned to you.
How Does Comparative Negligence Work With Multiple Responsible Parties?
In some personal injury cases, more than one party may be legally responsible for your injuries. For instance, in a multi-vehicle crash or a construction site injury, multiple individuals or companies might have contributed to the accident.
Under California law, each party is assigned a percentage of fault, and each is only responsible for paying their share of the damages. This is known as "several liability." However, for certain types of damages, such as economic losses (including medical bills and lost income), multiple parties may be held jointly liable, meaning they could be required to pay more than their share if one party cannot.
This legal framework makes these cases more complex and increases the need for a knowledgeable attorney who can pursue every liable party to maximize your compensation.
You Can Still Recover If You Were Primarily at Fault for an Accident
One of the most important aspects of California’s comparative fault rule is that you are not barred from recovery even if you were mostly at fault. Even if you're determined to be 60%, 70%, or even 90% responsible for the accident, you can still pursue compensation for the portion that wasn’t your fault.
This is especially important in pedestrian accidents, bicycle accidents, and certain motor vehicle collisions where both parties may have made mistakes. Don’t assume you have no case just because you may share some blame; it is essential to consult with an attorney first.
Why Legal Representation Matters in Comparative Fault Cases
Comparative fault cases require a strategic legal approach. Insurance companies will often try to inflate your percentage of fault to reduce what they owe, even when the facts don’t support it. Without an attorney to protect your rights, you could end up with far less than you deserve.
At the Law Office of Brian P. Azemika, we investigate your case thoroughly, challenge unfair blame, and fight to ensure your share of compensation is preserved. We know how Sacramento courts interpret these laws, and we know how to present substantial evidence that protects your claim.
Don’t Let Fault End Your Case
If you’ve been injured in an accident and are worried that you may be partially at fault, don’t give up. California’s comparative fault system is designed to provide accident victims with a path to recovery, even when fault is shared among multiple parties. Let us review your case at no cost and explain your legal options.
At the Law Office of Brian P. Azemika, we offer complimentary consultations and charge no fees unless we achieve a successful outcome. You deserve to know where you stand and what your case could be worth. Call today or request your consultation online. We're here to protect your rights and fight for every dollar you deserve.
Practice Areas
CLIENT
TESTIMONIALS
Brian Azemika fought for me when others thought my case was a lost cause. Brian Azemika took over my case with only a few weeks to prepare prior to trial. His knowledge and expertise showed in how he prepared me for my testimony at trial. He also had a great presence in the courtroom and really connected with the jury during the entire trial. He did such a great job in the eyes of the jury that many of them approached him after the trial and asked him for his business card. Thanks to Mr. Azemika, the jury returned a verdict for $400,000.00, which was amazing since the settlement offer from the insurance company was for only $45,000.00 on the first day of trial. I am so glad that Brian Azemika was my trial attorney.
Irene J.
Ione, CA
Proud Sponsor of the new Local Women’s Premier Soccer League team,
The Roseville Iron Rose.

“You focus on your health and recovery – I’ll do the rest!”