Sentences with phrase «if comparative fault»

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.

Not exact matches

If an issue of comparative fault does arise in your case, contact a Boston car accident lawyer.

The Colorado comparative fault system allows the defendant to avoid liability entirely if you were at least 50 percent at fault in the accident.

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.

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.

Pursuant to Idaho's comparative negligence rule, if a claimant's total fault is less than 50 percent, he or she can be awarded damages, but any amount of damages attributable to him or her must be deducted from the damages award.

This is generally the case if you live in a comparative fault state.

In a pure comparative fault state, plaintiffs can pursue compensation even if they are 99 percent at fault, and the damages that they recover will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

Unlike a modified comparative state, the plaintiff can still recover even if he or she is over 50 % at fault.

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.

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.

In the case of comparative negligence, if a person riding their bike in a bike lane at night was struck by a speeding car, but the bicyclist was also riding without a headlight or reflectors, a jury may find the motorist 75 percent at - fault and the cyclist 25 percent at - fault.

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

If a 50 percent comparative fault determination is made, he or she takes nothing.

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

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.

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.

Maine is a pure comparative negligence state, requiring that the injured party's recovery be reduced by their proportion of fault, if any.

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.

Texas has a «modified» comparative fault rule, which affects any litigation you may file or consider filing if you were even partially at fault in the accident.

Connecticut is a modified comparative fault state which means that if the accident in question was your fault or mostly your fault, you may not have a claim.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The plaintiffs may also encounter the comparative fault law, which applies if an injured person's negligence contributed to the accident.

Other states and countries have adopted the doctrine of comparative fault, which «compares» the legal responsibility of the victim and the other parties, and provides compensation to the victim in direct proportion to the comparative responsibility of the parties (i.e., if the dog owner is 90 % responsible and the victim is only 10 % responsible, then the victim's compensation is reduced by his or her 10 % of fault).

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.

California law is based on the theory of comparative fault, which means that an accident victim can recover damages even if they contributed to the cause of their injury.

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).

Where a motorcycle is concerned, a common example of comparative fault might be where the motorcycle's headlamp, brake light, or tail light is out, especially if the accident happened at night.

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.

If you are not following the traffic laws for motorcyclists in Omaha, then that can be considered comparative or contributory negligence and they could be considered as much at fault as the other drivers.

If your total amount of damages is $ 100,000 but you were 60 % at fault for the accident, you would not receive anything because of the modified comparative fault rule.

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

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

If you can show that your employer is at fault for your injury, you still must deal with what is known as «comparative fault.»

In some states, any fault assignable to you means you lose, but in California they follow the pure comparative fault rule, where your portion of the liability is deducted from an award (but you can still collect something if it was 99 % your fault).

With the pure comparative fault standard, the injured party can recover for damages even if he is 99 percent at fault.