Sentences with phrase «comparative fault for»

Utah is one of a handful of states to use the standard of modified comparative fault for determining liability in personal injury suits — and, by extension, trucking accidents.

Not exact matches

A pure comparative negligence system basically means that a person can receive compensation from any at - fault party after a car accident, regardless of the percentage of fault that they themselves are responsible for the accident.

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.

Our firm is ready to stand by the side of injured motorcyclists and their families, fighting back against allegations of comparative fault and placing the blame for a crash caused by a careless driver where it belongs.

In the state of Washington, we observe comparative negligence, which means that fault is not always solely on the person responsible for the accident.

The law of comparative fault allows anyone injured in an accident to recover compensation as long as they are not entirely responsible for the injury - causing crash.

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

Massachusetts has a modified comparative negligence statute whereby you must prove that the defendant or defendants were at least 51 % at fault for your accident or you will not recover anything.

Because Florida is a «comparative fault» state, a business or property owner — or their insurance company — may try to claim that you were partially at - fault for the slip and fall accident.

That's because modified comparative fault stipulates that motorists who are found primarily — even 51 percent — responsible for their accident will not be eligible to receive compensation of any kind.

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.

In comparative fault states, liability for an accident can be shared by the at - fault party and the injured person.

States have different systems to handle instances of comparative fault, a situation in which more than one party is at fault for an accident.

Comparative fault or comparative negligence can mean that you will be partially responsible for your injuries, and therefore may only receive a percentage, based upon your comparative fault, oComparative fault or comparative negligence can mean that you will be partially responsible for your injuries, and therefore may only receive a percentage, based upon your comparative fault, ocomparative negligence can mean that you will be partially responsible for your injuries, and therefore may only receive a percentage, based upon your comparative fault, ocomparative fault, of an award.

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.

California uses a system of compensation known as comparative negligence that allows you to receive compensation for an accident that was even 99 % your fault.

Many states have opted for a system that uses comparative negligence to determine the percentage of fault for the victim, if any, and then subtracts that percentage from the overall damage value.

In effect, comparative negligence says that, even if you were partially at fault for an accident, you can still recover compensation from another negligent party.

Like many states, Florida has adopted comparative negligence laws for evaluating fault in car accident cases.

In Florida, the law of comparative negligence allows you to sue negligent parties for damages if some fault is found with them.

Fortunately for victims, Texas law uses a system that is often referred to as «comparative fault,» which is also referred to as «proportionate responsibility.»

In states that use a modified comparative fault rule, the plaintiff will not receive any portion of the payout if he is equally or more at fault for the sustained damages.

Texas uses a «modified» comparative fault rule to decide what to do when the person seeking compensation is also found partly at fault for the accident.

If he sues another driver for negligence, the defendant may ask the jury to use the doctrine of comparative negligence to reduce any settlement by the percentage of fault attributable to the motorcyclist.

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 many cases, however, since Arizona is a comparative negligence state, fault for a car accident may be determined to be divided between the drivers involved.

Indiana is a modified comparative negligence state, so as long as an accident victim is less than 50 % at fault for the accident, there is still a right to recovery.

Prior to 2006 and the passage of F.S. 768.81, Florida's pure comparative fault statute, injured car accident victims could seek the full amount of damages from a single defendant — even if that defendant was only partially responsible for the crash.

Even if comparative fault is used against you, we know the appropriate means to protect your legal rights and strive to provide you with the compensation appropriate for your case and allow you to concentrate on your recovery.

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.

Modified comparative fault: This theory allows a party to recover as long as they are less than 50 % at fault for the accident.

Massachusetts is a comparative negligence state where your degree of fault can not exceed 50 % to be able to recover any compensation for your injury.

In these types of accidents, Indiana law applies a theory called «comparative fault» to determine which parties can seek compensation for their injuries, and what amount of damages each party should be responsible to cover.

A few states use pure comparative fault, allowing a plaintiff to recover damages even when he is largely responsible for his own 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.

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.

Just like a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury decides how much fault should be allocated to each person responsible for an accident and apportions the amount of damages accordingly.

Summary In recent years, courts in some states have held that when the legislature adopted a comparative fault statute, which bases the award to the plaintiff on the defendant's percentage of responsibility for the injury to plaintiff, the legislature abolished the defense of assumption of the risk.

In a pure comparative negligence system, the judge or jury decides how much fault should be allocated to each person responsible for an accident, and then apportions the amount of damages accordingly.

The jury awared $ 1,353,249 (10 % off 1,503,610 for comparative fault).

If he or she was a passenger in a car involved in an accident, they can not be held at fault for the incident, and Florida's policy of comparative fault would not apply to their claim.

The time has come for DC to get in step with the rest of the country and replace contributory negligence with comparative fault.

California law explicitly accounts for this type of a situation by way of a legal doctrine known as comparative negligence, or comparative fault.

Because New Mexico is a comparative fault accident state, a motorcycle crash victim may receive damages for his or her accident injuries even if the motorcycle rider was partly responsible for the crash.

Even if you were partially at fault for the accident, there are cases in which the comparative negligence of the other driver makes it possible to recover a substantial verdict or settlement.

If you are found partly to blame, Texas follows a «modified comparative negligence rule» that will likely reduce the amount of compensation you get by an amount that is equal to the percentage of your fault in the accident (for example, you were rear ended, but one of your brake lights was not working).

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.