The State you live in determines what, if any, you get paid after a car accident

You are at a stop sign with your signal to turn left.  You look both ways, no one is coming, and proceed into the intersection....only to be hit on your drivers side from BEHIND.  The car who hits you is speeding and illegally passing in an intersection on the left side.  You stop and get out.  The driver does not have a drivers license or auto insurance.  You call your insurance company and file a claim under the uninsured motorist policy, no problem that's why you pay for it, right?  WRONG!  This is a true story of what happens after an accident because of your STATE LAWS.  The claim was denied under the reasoning of Contributory Negligence and the insurance company denied it because she should have checked her rear-view mirror to see if a speeding, unlicensed, illegally passing bonehead was there before she started her turn..!!! What this means is if you are found guilty, even by only 1%, you cannot recover ANY damages that were caused by the person who caused the accident.  Do you know if your state has this in place?  If not follow this link to see as there are currently five states who still have this in place.

Other states have adopted what is called the Comparative Negligence system which is broken down into several smaller systems:  This information is taken directly from the Personal Injury Lawyer Directory website.  

In a comparative negligence system, the injured party may still recover some of his or her damages even if he or she was partially to blame for causing the accident. Plaintiff’s financial recovery may be reduced, or even prohibited, depending how plaintiff’s actions caused or contributed to the accident. In states using a comparative negligence system, a jury or judge determines the proportion of fault to be assigned to each responsible party. Jurisdictions following a comparative negligence system will typically apportion the damages using one of three variations of comparative negligence:

• Pure comparative negligence:   
  Presently, thirteen (13) states follow a pure comparative negligence system: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington. In a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. Using this system, an injured person may recover his or her damages even if the injured person was 99% at fault in causing the injury, with those damages reduced by his or her portion of the fault. For example, in a car accident between Dave and Debbie where Debbie was found to be 99% responsible, and the jury found that Debbie suffered $10,000 in damages, that award would be reduced by Debbie’s 99% fault in causing the injury. In the end, Dave would only have to pay 1% of Debbie’s damages, or $100 in this case.
• Modified comparative negligence – 51% rule:   Thirty-three (33) states follow a modified comparative fault system. Similar to a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury assigns a percentage of fault to each responsible party and then apportions the damage award accordingly. From that point, depending on how the system is applied, if a plaintiff’s apportioned fault reaches a particular level, he or she may be completely prohibited from recovering a damage award.

Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, the remaining twenty-one (21) states follow a 51% rule. In states following amodified comparative fault – 51% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault does not reach 51%. If the injured party was 50% or less at fault, he or she may still recover damages. In other words, a plaintiff may have caused half of the accident and still recover damages from the court, but if it is found that the plaintiff’s fault was responsible formore than half of the accident, that plaintiff is barred from receiving any damages determined by the court. Here, as in a pure comparative negligence state, a plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the degree of his or her fault. Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming follow the 51% rule.

• Modified comparative negligence – 50% rule:  Of the thirty-three states following a modified comparative fault system, twelve (12) states follow a 50% rule. In states following a modified comparative fault – 50% rule, an injured party can only recover if it is determined that his or her fault in causing the injury is 49% or less. If the injured party’s fault level reaches 50%, he or she cannot recover any damages resulting from the accident. Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, and West Virginia follow the 50% rule.

Please note this information was taken directly from Personal Injury Lawyer Directory website and is not to be construed as legal advice.  Please find a Personal Injury Attorney in your state should you need any legal advice.  For Colorado I highly recommend Zeisler and Associates, Attorneys at Law, PC.  

Like Zeisler & Associates, Attorneys at Law, PC on Facebook or visit their website for more information.

Do you have a story you would like to share?