One of the more easily misunderstood-yet common-concepts in the legal world is fault, particularly as it applies to auto accidents. You may have heard people say, "If you're in an accident, whatever you do, don't admit that anything was your fault." And that is good advice, but it doesn't fully explain the legal concept of fault.
Fault can be thought of as the main factor in determining liability-in other words, who should pay for an accident or injury. If an accident is serious enough for one party to sue the other in court, then the jury will determine which party (or parties) were at fault in the case. And although the jury might hear testimony from experts, police, and the drivers of the vehicles, none of these people have the final say about whose fault an accident was. Ultimately, it's the jury's job to determine fault (or, in a case with no jury, it's the judge's job).
Since the mid-1970s, California has operated under a doctrine of comparable fault. This means that the law takes into account the fact that a car accident (or some other injury) could be the fault of more than one person. Often, this fault is not shared equally. For instance, if a car, while turning left, is struck by an oncoming speeding drunk driver, most people would agree that the accident and any injuries are the fault of the drunk driver. But if the injured driver was making an illegal turn at the time, some of the blame could rest with that driver, as well.
Before California adopted a comparable fault regime, the fact that the injured driver was making an illegal turn often meant that he received no compensation for his injuries. The California Supreme Court recognized how unfair this was, and so today, a jury might find that the drunk driver was 90 percent at fault and the other driver was only 10 percent at fault. Under this system, the injured driver's damage award may be reduced from $100,000 to $90,000 to account for the 10 percent fault.
A more recent development has been the introduction of no-fault insurance laws in some states. In these states, auto insurance policies do not take into account who was at fault in an accident. Instead, they simply pay for any injuries and vehicular damage, unless the injuries are particularly severe, in which case the injured party can still take the other party to court. Supporters of these no-fault laws claim they will reduce the amount of litigation and pay people for their injuries quicker, while still allowing people to sue for very severe injuries, such as death or loss of a limb. But opponents point out that many injuries can be hard to diagnose, don't develop until later, or that these laws do not account for the long-term pain and suffering that accompanies so many auto accidents.
At present, twelve states have adopted no-fault laws governing auto accidents. Currently, California is not one of them, which means anyone injured in a car accident in California still has the right to take the other party to court-regardless of fault.
If you've been involved in an auto accident, it's important to consult with an experienced personal injury lawyer, who can fully explain your legal options-even if you believe you may be partially at fault.
