According to a July 2017 article in The Press-Enterprise, three people were killed in an accident after a man ran a red light. A man driving an SUV allegedly crashed into a car in Apple Valley.
The car crash happened in the early afternoon at the intersection of Bear Valley Road and Deep Creek Road. The SUV’s driver ran a red light and crashed into a 2013 Honda Civic turning west from Deep Creek Road.
The driver and occupant of the Honda, a 63-year-old male and 77-year-old passenger, died at the accident scene. The SUV driver was airlifted to the hospital where he later died.
The police were investigating the accident at the time of the article and did not initially have another cause of the crash.
Pure Comparative Negligence Allows a Victim who Shares Blame in an Accident to Sue for Damages
A defendant trying to avoid paying an injured plaintiff will have many legal defenses to help avoid liability. One type of defense is called comparative negligence. Comparative negligence is claiming that a plaintiff injured in a car accident did something wrong to help cause the accident, essentially contributing to his or her own injuries.
According to California law, an injured victim has the responsibility of protecting him or herself from harm by not doing anything to cause an accident. If an accident does occur and the injured plaintiff is at fault, a judge can compare fault.
In some states, if the injured plaintiff is deemed to be at fault more than 50%, then he or she cannot receive damages. Other states use a form of comparative negligence that alters the amount an injured plaintiff can receive if he or she shares fault for the accident.
Pure Comparative Negligence in San Bernardino
In California, comparative negligence is further broken down into another type of negligence called pure comparative negligence.
Pure comparing fault involves assessing a percentage of fault to each driver. The amount of the plaintiff’s fault decreases his or her damages. For example, a defendant ran a red light and caused an accident. The injured plaintiff was texting at the time and did not see the driver coming towards him or her. A judge or jury would assign a percentage of fault to the injured plaintiff.
Let’s say it the injured plaintiff’s fault was 30%. If he or she did not share fault, he or she would receive 100% of damages. Being 30% at fault, the plaintiff would receive 70% of damages.
Contact Sanford A. Kassel About Your San Bernardino Car Accident
If you are partially at fault for an accident caused by another driver, you are still allowed to seek damages. Compensation for lost wages, medical costs, and pain and suffering are common types of damages sought in a car accident case. Since you may be partially at fault for the crash, your amount of damages may be lower than someone who did not share fault in the crash, but this does not mean you do not have the right to file a claim.
Contact us about your car accident in southern California. We will determine the cause of the accident and if you really share fault.
