Personal injury lawsuits can arise in any number of ways, and many times they involve situations where both parties to the lawsuit are somewhat at fault for the injuries and damages that were suffered by the plaintiff.

The fact of the matter is that not all personal injury lawsuits are cut-and-dry where one party is completely to blame for the result, and the laws of California have dealt with this reality with a legal concept known as comparative negligence.

Below you’ll find information regarding how California comparative negligence works, how it would generally play out in a personal injury lawsuit.

If you have been injured and are concerned about how you should proceed, contact our experienced lawyers for information about your specific case.

The concept of comparative negligence in California began to take on its modern form in 1975 with a case entitled, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. That case involved a traffic accident where the plaintiff made a turn across three lanes of traffic and was hit by the defendant’s vehicle which was speeding at the time. Up until that point, California had basically followed an “all or nothing” rule in which the plaintiff would not recover damages if he or she was partially at fault for the resulting damages.

This ruling changed that concept and allowed for the plaintiff to recover damages based on what would become known as a “pure” comparative fault standard. This concept has since been altered slightly with subsequent decisions to ultimately form what is known as the California comparative fault standard that’s used today.