With the pure
comparative fault standard, the injured party can recover for damages even if he is 99 percent at 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.
As of 2012, several states, including New Mexico, follow
the comparative fault standard.
Not exact matches
If you are eligible to sue via a personal injury claim on top of recovering compensation through a no -
fault claim, it helps to be aware of Utah's use of the
standard of modified
comparative fault.
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.
One concept to familiarize yourself with is the
standard of modified
comparative fault, which only allows you to recover damages in a car accident if you were not primarily at
fault.
Other states have «
comparative negligence»
standards that may permit recovery when both drivers are at
fault, but that is not the case in Virginia.
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.
To understand how
fault works in commercial trucking wrecks in Washington state, it's critical to understand the basics of the
standard of
comparative negligence.
They will do this because Idaho uses a
standard comparative responsibility statute, which will lower your compensation by the amount of
fault the court decides you should bear.
In Utah, the
standard of modified
comparative fault is used, which can reduce an injury victim's compensation to the degree to which he or she found liable, a common feature of liability law nationwide.
In states with a
comparative negligence
standard, responsibility for an accident is allocated according to the degree of
fault of the people involved in the accident.