Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
California operates under a legal doctrine called pure comparative negligence (or comparative fault). This system allows an injured person (the plaintiff) to recover compensation even if they were partially to blame for the accident that caused their injuries. Your total compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault.
This is in stark contrast to states that use a "contributory negligence" rule, where being even 1% at fault can completely bar you from any recovery.
The rationale behind California's system is to ensure that each party is held financially responsible only for the portion of the harm they caused, creating a more equitable outcome for accident victims.
The concept of pure comparative negligence means that courts and juries will first determine the total monetary damages you suffered. They will then assign a percentage of fault to every party involved in the accident, including you.
The total of all fault percentages must equal 100%. After the percentages are determined, your compensation is reduced proportionally. For example, if you suffer $250,000 in total damages in a car accident and a jury finds you were 30% at fault, you would be able to recover $175,000 (your $250,000 in damages minus the 30% reduction).
If you were found to be 90% at fault, you could still recover $25,000. This system ensures that each party is held financially accountable only for their share of the blame.
Before the concept of comparative fault comes into play, an injured person must first prove that the other party's negligence caused their injuries. Negligence is the failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation. For a deeper dive into the foundational rules, see Core Principles of California Personal Injury Law (2025)
To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four fundamental elements:
If a plaintiff can successfully prove all four of these elements, they have established the defendant's negligence. It is at this point that a court or jury will then consider whether the plaintiff's own actions contributed to the accident, applying the pure comparative negligence rules.
The concept of a duty of care is the cornerstone of negligence law. It’s a legal obligation that requires an individual to adhere to a standard of reasonable care to avoid harming others.
The specific duty of care owed can vary depending on the circumstances and the relationship between the parties. For instance, a driver on the road has a duty to other drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists to operate their vehicle safely.
A doctor owes their patient a duty of care to provide treatment that meets the standard of care for their profession. Similarly, a property owner owes a duty of care to guests and visitors to maintain a safe environment and warn them of any known dangers.
The breach of this duty is what leads to liability. For example, a driver who texts and drives, a store owner who fails to clean up a spill, or a dog owner who lets their dog roam off-leash in violation of local laws, are all examples of a breach of a duty of care.
The breach does not have to be an intentional act; it can be a simple oversight or a failure to act, as long as a reasonable person would have acted differently in the same circumstances.
The determination of fault is a crucial step in a personal injury case, and it’s typically left to a jury. The jury’s role is to evaluate all the available evidence, such as police reports, witness statements, expert testimony from accident reconstructionists or medical professionals, and surveillance footage, to decide who was negligent and to what degree.
They'll evaluate the actions of each party and compare them to what a "reasonable person" would have done in the same situation.
At the end of the trial, a jury will receive a verdict form from the judge. This form guides them through the process, and its use is governed by the state’s official Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), provided by the Judicial Council of California.
The form will first ask them to determine if the defendant was negligent. If they answer "yes," it will then ask them to determine if that negligence was a cause of the plaintiff's injuries. If they also answer "yes," they will then be asked to determine the total dollar amount of the plaintiff's damages.
Finally, and most importantly for this topic, they will be asked to assign a percentage of fault to all parties involved, including the plaintiff. This meticulous process ensures that the final award is a direct reflection of each party's role in causing the accident.
Insurance companies play a central role in nearly all personal injury claims. Their primary goal is to minimize the amount of money they have to pay out. They are experts at using the comparative fault doctrine to their advantage.
From the moment you file a claim, an insurance adjuster will begin their own investigation, looking for any evidence that could suggest you were partially at fault. They may ask you leading questions during a recorded statement or use your social media posts to argue that your injuries aren’t as severe as you claim.
It's very common for insurance companies to make a lowball offer early in the process. This offer is often based on an inflated assessment of your own percentage of fault.
For example, if you believe you were 10% at fault for a slip and fall, the insurance company might argue you were 40% responsible and base their offer on that higher percentage. Having a skilled personal injury attorney is crucial in these negotiations.
An attorney can present a strong, evidence-based case to counter the insurance company's arguments and fight for a more accurate and fair percentage of fault, ultimately leading to higher compensation for the victim.
The compensation you can recover in a personal injury claim is known as "damages." These damages are often separated into two categories: economic and non-economic.
The pure comparative negligence system applies to both types of damages, meaning your entire award—both economic and non-economic—will be reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if your total damages are $100,000 in economic costs and $150,000 in non-economic costs ($250,000 total), and you are found to be 30% at fault, your final award would be $175,000.
Punitive Damages in California: When Courts Award Extra Compensation
In a very small number of personal injury cases, a court may also award punitive damages. Unlike compensatory damages (economic and non-economic), which are designed to make the victim whole, punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and deter them and others from engaging in similar egregious conduct in the future.
Punitive damages are only awarded when the defendant’s conduct was particularly reprehensible. The legal standard requires the plaintiff to prove by “clear and convincing evidence” that the defendant acted with malice, oppression, or fraud (see CACI Nos. 3940–3949).
This is a much higher burden of proof than for standard negligence claims. “Malice” refers to a conscious disregard for the safety of others; “oppression” involves subjecting a person to cruel and unjust hardship; and “fraud” involves an intentional misrepresentation.
Examples where punitive damages might be considered include drunk-driving accidents where the driver has a history of reckless behavior or a manufacturer that knowingly sells a defective and dangerous product.
While most personal injury cases hinge on proving negligence and applying comparative fault, some areas of law in California fall under the doctrine of strict liability. In these cases, the defendant is held responsible for the harm they cause regardless of their intent or the level of care they exercised. In other words, the plaintiff does not need to prove negligence.
The mere fact that the harm occurred is enough to establish liability.
The most common examples of strict liability in California are:
The principle of comparative fault can still apply in strict liability cases, but it's used to assess the victim's own contribution to their injury. For example, if a person was injured by a defective product but misused it in a way that directly contributed to their injury, their compensation could be reduced.
In California, there is a strict time limit for filing a personal injury lawsuit, known as the statute of limitations. For most personal injury claims, this time limit is two years from the date the injury occurred.
If you fail to file a lawsuit within this two-year period, you will almost certainly lose your right to sue and seek compensation, no matter how strong your case may be.
It's critical to be aware of this deadline and to act quickly. There are a few rare exceptions that can "toll" (or pause) the statute of limitations, such as if the victim was a minor at the time of the injury or if the defendant left the state.
However, these exceptions are complex and should never be relied upon without consulting with an attorney.
Legal statutes and court precedents in California are constantly evolving. For example, a recent case decided by a California appellate court in 2025, Ng v. Superior Court, clarified that in medical malpractice cases, plaintiffs can seek separate caps for wrongful death and survival actions.
Additionally, legislative changes like Assembly Bill 413 went into effect in 2025, prohibiting vehicles from stopping within a certain distance of crosswalks, an effort that will impact how fault is assigned in pedestrian-vehicle accidents.
It is essential for anyone involved in a personal injury case to stay informed of any relevant legal reforms and to consult with a legal professional who is up-to-date on the latest changes.
California's pure comparative negligence system is designed to provide a fair and equitable path to compensation for injury victims, but it also adds a significant layer of complexity to personal injury claims. Proving the other party's negligence while simultaneously fighting arguments that you were also at fault is a central part of any legal strategy. By understanding the foundational principles of negligence, the roles of juries and insurance companies, and the different types of damages you can recover, you can better navigate the often-challenging process of seeking justice. Consulting with an experienced personal injury attorney is the most reliable way to ensure your rights are protected and that you receive the maximum compensation you are entitled to under California law.
What is comparative fault in California?
Comparative fault, also called pure comparative negligence, is the rule in California that allows injury victims to recover compensation even if they were partly at fault. Their damages are reduced by their percentage of blame.
Can you still recover damages if you are 90% at fault in California?
Yes. Under California’s pure comparative negligence system, you can still recover 10% of your damages even if you are 90% at fault.
How do juries decide fault in California injury cases?
Juries review all the evidence, including testimony, reports, and expert analysis. They then assign percentages of fault to each party, which determines how compensation is divided.
What damages can you recover in a California personal injury case?
You can recover both economic damages (medical bills, lost wages, property damage) and non-economic damages (pain and suffering, emotional distress). Punitive damages may also apply in rare cases.
What is the statute of limitations for personal injury in California?
In most cases, you must file a lawsuit within two years of the injury. Missing this deadline usually means losing your right to sue.
To provide the best experiences, we and our partners use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us and our partners to process personal data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site and show (non-) personalized ads. Not consenting or withdrawing consent, may adversely affect certain features and functions.
Click below to consent to the above or make granular choices. Your choices will be applied to this site only. You can change your settings at any time, including withdrawing your consent, by using the toggles on the Cookie Policy, or by clicking on the manage consent button at the bottom of the screen.
