Sentences with phrase «under comparative fault»

Under a comparative fault analysis, any motorist injured in an accident can pursue a claim of compensation against any of the other motorists they believe to be at fault for their injuries.

Under the comparative fault doctrine, the judge or jury first will assign each party a percentage of fault after hearing all the evidence in the case.

Not exact matches

Under Utah's comparative negligence laws, each involved party is financially responsible for only his or her share of the damages, so maximizing your compensation means proving everyone's fault while minimizing your own.

Under Washington's comparative negligence law, your compensation is reduced by the same percentage of fault you bear for your accident.

This is called the «50 % fault rule» under the theory of «modified comparative negligence.»

Under the law of pure comparative negligence, an injury victim can recover compensation for injuries suffered in an accident even if he or she was more than 51 percent at fault.

Under a pure comparative negligence analysis, the jury will assign a percentage of fault to all involved parties.

Under Illinois» theory of comparative negligence, if you are found to be more than 50 percent at fault for the accident, you can not recover any compensation from the other parties.

Colorado state operates under «modified comparative negligence» law, which has important consequences when trying to determine fault in an accident.

Under this theory of comparative fault, a victim can also be held financially responsible if they played a role in causing their own accident.

You are allowed under Texas comparative negligence rules to be up to 50 % at fault yourself, but no more.

This is because under Colorado's modified comparative fault rules, injured parties are not permitted to collect damages from other at - fault drivers if they were 50 percent or more responsible for the crash.

Under comparative negligence, the percentage of fault you are found responsible for will directly reduce your awarded settlement amount by that percentage.

In California, liability for an accident must be established under the state's comparative fault rules.

Alternatively, under a comparative negligence standard, the court will evaluate the facts of the case and determine how much fault both the plaintiff and defendant are for the plaintiff's injury.

Under New Jersey comparative negligence law, you must prove that the other driver was more at fault than you for the accident in order to collect uninsured or underinsured motorist insurance benefits.

Under California's pure comparative fault doctrine, the plaintiff may only recover damages that are attributable to the defendant's negligence, rather than their own.

It is important to note that even if you were partially at fault for the accident, your recovery will not be barred under Maine's comparative negligence statute.

Under the comparative negligence rule in Maine, a plaintiff's recovery may be reduced by the percentage to which he or she was at fault.

Under the principal called comparative negligence, if you do bear some of the fault, the amount of compensation you can receive is reduced by your percentage of fault.

Under the pure comparative fault rule, the injured person may collect damages, even if he or she was partially at fault in the accident, however the compensation received would be decreased by percentage of blame.

California operates under what is known as pure comparative fault rule.

If you're partially at fault or the defending insurance company claims you are, under Washington's comparative negligence law, you can still collect some compensation.

The motorcyclist in that case may be able to seek damages from multiple sources under a theory of «comparative fault.»

Under the theory of pure comparative negligence, each party can be held liable for the portion of the accident that is their fault.

Under this modified comparative fault standard, you may be prevented from recovering any compensation at all if you are found to be more than 50 % at fault for your accident.

Under our rule of comparative fault, the defendant should be held responsible for his own negligence, if any.

That's because, under comparative negligence, you can be found partially at fault for your motorcycle accident.

A plaintiff's recovery may be reduced by his or her percentage of fault, if any, under the doctrine of comparative negligence.