Comparative Negligence in Atlanta: What It Means for Your Case (with Examples)

Dealing with the fallout of a motor vehicle accident is never easy, especially when there are questions about who was at fault. In Georgia, the legal concept known as comparative negligence is used to determine if a person is entitled to financial compensation despite playing a role in the accident. Understanding this concept is vital for anyone considering legal action.

If you were hurt in an accident, you have the right to pursue compensation with the help of experienced legal counsel. That said, comparative negligence laws could limit your potential recovery or even bar you from securing any damages at all.

Because of the complexity of this issue, it is never a good idea to handle your personal injury case on your own. One mistake could cost you any chance at financial compensation. Let an Atlanta car accident lawyer assist you every step of the way.

What is Comparative Negligence?

Georgia—like many states—uses a system known as modified comparative negligence. Under this standard, you have the right to pursue a personal injury lawsuit as long as you are not more than 50 percent at fault for the accident. If you are primarily to blame for your injuries, you may not seek compensation from another party, even if they played a relatively prominent role in causing your injuries.

Your degree of fault will also impact the amount of compensation you are entitled to recover. If you are partially to blame, the courts will reduce your compensation by your degree of liability. For example, if you are 10 percent at fault, you will only be entitled to 90 percent of your total damages. This differs drastically compared to cases where you are 55 percent liable, which would provide you with no compensation at all.

What Other Systems Are There?

Not every state relies on the same comparative fault rules used in Georgia. There are different options that can dramatically impact the compensation available after an accident.

Each jurisdiction has the right to adopt its own standard. While the majority of states use a modified comparative negligence rule similar to Georgia’s, a small number of states use either the contributory negligence or pure comparative fault systems.

Contributory Negligence

The oldest system in place to determine how shared fault is handled is known as contributory negligence. This approach is harsh, which has led to most states moving away from it. Currently, only four states and the District of Columbia still rely on this approach, which bars a plaintiff from any recovery if they are even one percent liable for their injuries.

Pure Comparative Fault

On the other end of the spectrum is pure comparative fault. This system has some similarities to modified comparative negligence in that it does not prohibit you from seeking damages just because you were partially to blame for an accident.

If you are involved in an accident in a pure comparative fault state, you have the opportunity to seek damages regardless of your degree of fault. Whether you are one or 99 percent to blame for your accidental injury, you are not barred from pursuing a personal injury lawsuit against the other party.

Like modified comparative fault rules, this system also reduces your financial recovery based on your percentage of fault. There is also the risk that the other party involved in the accident could sue you.

Examples of Comparative Fault in Action

Questions of comparative fault are complicated, which makes thorough examples one of the best ways of truly understanding these concepts. Consider the following examples to better grasp how comparative fault works.

Example #1: Car Accident

Jeff was driving along a highway when he approached an intersection. Carlos, in the car in front of Jeff, slowed their vehicle as the light turned yellow, then accelerated through the intersection to make a left turn. Not wanting to get stuck at the light, Jeff followed Carlos by entering the intersection when the light was yellow. The light turned after Carlos cleared the intersection, but before Jeff was able to.

Anna was driving at the intersection on Cross Street. Anticipating that the light was about to turn green, she did not slow her speed and entered the intersection. The light turned green shortly after she entered the intersection, only for her to strike the side of Jeff’s car. Jeff suffered $100,000 worth of damages in the crash.

Jeff sued both Carlos and Anna following the accident. He argued that Carlos was negligent in slowing as he approached the intersection and that Anna was at fault for running the red light and not slowing down. Carlos argued that he entered the intersection legally, and Anna blamed Jeff for the accident due to entering the intersection after the light had changed.

The jury considered the facts and assigned Carlos zero liability, Jeff 40 percent liability, and Anna 60 percent liability. With this outcome, Carlos owes Jeff nothing, while Jeff has a judgment against Anna for $60,000.

Example #2: Commercial Truck Accident

Sally was driving home from a long shift at work at 10:00 P.M. In a hurry to get home and get to bed, she was traveling at an unsafe speed. In front of her, a commercial truck pulled out of a parking lot and into her path, where her car struck the side of the truck. Sally suffered $100,000 in total damages in the accident.

At trial, Sally argued that the truck driver failed to yield the right-of-way and was careless in pulling out in front of her. The trucking company argued that Sally’s high speed was the primary cause of the accident. During the trial, Sally also admitted to being under the influence of alcohol at the time of the crash.

Considering all of the information, the jury determined that Sally was 60 percent liable for the collision and the truck driver was 40 percent responsible. Sally was unable to recover any damages for her injuries.

Example #3: Slip and Fall

Jake was in a hurry to finish his grocery shopping at a local store. Rushing through the aisles to purchase the last few items, he failed to notice a sign warning of a wet floor. Approximately 20 feet past the sign, Jake slipped in a puddle of water caused by a leaking refrigeration unit and fell, injuring himself. The total value of his injury claim is $100,000.

Jake filed a personal injury lawsuit against the store, arguing negligence. His attorneys pointed to the failure to clear the water from the floor as well as the fact that the sign warning of a slippery surface was far from the actual hazard. During discovery, Jake also learned that the refrigeration unit had been leaking for weeks without being repaired. The store argued that Jake assumed the risk by ignoring the wet floor sign.

The jury considering the case determined that Jake was 10 percent liable for the fall for failing to heed the warning sign. They assigned 90 percent liability to the store and awarded Jake $90,000.

Proving Fault in an Atlanta Court

In every personal injury case that goes to trial, determining who was at fault is an important part of the process. Juries that hear these cases will hear the evidence put on by both sides at trial, and the way a plaintiff puts together their case can dramatically impact the ultimate outcome.

Different types of evidence are vital in these cases. Often, the bulk of the case for negligence is built on testimony by witnesses. In addition to testimony from the two parties involved in the lawsuit, juries also give weight to statements from neutral individuals who saw the accident unfold. Given their lack of bias or personal interest in the outcome of the case, it is not uncommon for personal injury trials to hinge on the words of a witness.

Your Atlanta car accident lawyer might be able to find additional evidence related to the crash. For example, they may be able to discover video footage of the accident as it happened. This could come from a driver’s dashboard camera footage or from a security camera mounted on a nearby business. Letting a jury see the accident themselves can provide the clearest picture of who was at fault.

In complex cases, the testimony of an expert could make all the difference. They are particularly common in motor vehicle collisions, as they can help reconstruct accidents and identify liable parties. Medical experts could explain why an injury or condition is the fault of another person. Experts in the field of construction might be able to show how poor building practices led to a collapse. The process of qualifying these witnesses can be complex, especially without an attorney.

Our Firm Can Help Unravel Shared Fault Accidents

When it comes to personal injury cases where one party is not clearly at fault, having the support of a knowledgeable attorney can make all the difference. These cases often involve complex legal arguments, detailed investigations, and negotiations with insurance companies that may try to deny your claim for compensation.

Understanding Local Laws and Court Systems

Georgia’s modified comparative negligence rule is nuanced and complex. Establishing fault percentages requires a deep understanding of state law and practical courtroom experience. An Atlanta car accident lawyer can offer invaluable knowledge of court practices and precedents that may directly impact your case. Moreover, attorneys who regularly practice in Atlanta are familiar with the city’s judges, mediators, and opposing counsel, giving them insight into how to approach your case strategically.

The Benefits of Experience with Complex Cases

Comparative negligence cases often involve multiple parties and gray legal areas. Determining fault requires analyzing evidence like police reports, video footage, and expert opinions in order to not only determine who was at fault but also identify their degree of negligence.

An attorney can also handle the negotiation process with insurance companies, which are often quick to shift blame onto you to minimize payouts. Our firm understands these tactics and knows how to fight them.

How Our Atlanta Car Accident Lawyer Team Helps Maximize Compensation

Without legal representation, you risk being unfairly assigned a higher percentage of fault, which directly reduces your compensation—or bars you from recovery altogether. When you act as your own attorney, you are held to the same standard as someone with years of legal training. This can put you at a tremendous disadvantage against the insurance companies.

Challenges in Navigating Comparative Negligence Laws

There are unique challenges in cases involving comparative negligence issues. For starters, establishing fault and allocating responsibility is never easy, especially when there are potentially multiple parties to blame. Often, both sides will have very different versions of events. It is not uncommon for both parties to fully blame the other.

These cases can make dealing with insurance companies especially frustrating. Adjusters often latch on to even the smallest degree of shared fault as an excuse to reject claims or make lowball offers. You need an attorney who understands how to deal with these carriers.

There are other legal pitfalls to be aware of outside of shared fault. No matter how strong your argument for negligence might be, you must file your case before the statute of limitations expires.

Talk to an Atlanta Car Accident Lawyer at Mabra Law After an Injury

At Mabra Law, we know how stressful it can be to face allegations that you were partially to blame for your injuries. Even if you share in the fault, you may still have a strong case for financial compensation.

Never assume you are out of luck for a monetary settlement. You might be surprised at how strong your claim is, even with the potential for comparative negligence rules to impact you. Before you accept a plea offer on your own, contact us to learn more about how our team of attorneys may be able to help.