In Washington State, comparative negligence is the standard used to assign fault and determine financial responsibility in personal injury cases. The rule evaluates each party’s contribution to an accident, adjusting compensation based on the level of fault. When those injured share some responsibility for the accident, their compensation is reduced accordingly. Unlike contributory negligence, where any fault may bar recovery, comparative negligence allows for partial recovery even when the injured party is partially to blame.
Comparative negligence impacts both case strategies and a plaintiff’s ability to recover compensation by determining how damages are calculated based on shared fault.
What is “Pure” Comparative Negligence?
In Washington, comparative negligence is applied through a “pure” model, meaning fault is divided proportionally among all parties involved in an accident, regardless of how high a plaintiff’s percentage of fault may be. The system contrasts with “modified” comparative negligence, used in other states, where plaintiffs may be barred from recovery if their fault exceeds a certain percentage, often 50%.
For example, under Washington’s pure comparative negligence law, if a plaintiff is found to be 99% at fault for an accident, they can still recover 1% of the damages. While the compensation would be drastically reduced, the system allows some level of recovery even for those who bear significant responsibility for the incident. This contrasts sharply with contributory fault systems, where any fault—no matter how small—can completely bar recovery.
Washington’s pure comparative negligence system allows compensation to reflect shared responsibility in nuanced cases where fault is often divided among multiple parties.
Washington’s Comparative Negligence Laws
Washington’s comparative negligence law is codified in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) 4.22.005, which formally adopts the pure comparative negligence system. It was put in place in 1973 when Washington shifted from the contributory negligence system. The change reflected a broader trend across the United States toward more equitable systems that consider shared responsibility in accidents.
Washington’s adoption of pure comparative fault leads to a fairer evaluation of personal injury cases, recognizing that accidents often result from the actions of multiple parties. The law also works in conjunction with other statutes that shape personal injury claims, such as those governing insurance liability and settlement procedures. For example, Washington Law (RCW 48.01.030) requires that insurance companies act in good faith toward claimants. In comparative negligence cases, this requirement can affect how settlements are negotiated, as insurers must consider the divided fault when determining what constitutes a fair settlement offer.
Application of Comparative Negligence
To understand how comparative negligence is applied in Washington courts, consider the following hypothetical scenario:
A pedestrian is crossing the street outside of a designated crosswalk when they are struck by a car that was speeding through an intersection. In this case, both the pedestrian and the driver contributed to the accident—the pedestrian for crossing improperly and the driver for speeding. The court may determine that the pedestrian was 30% at fault, while the driver was 70% at fault.
Under Washington’s pure comparative negligence system, the pedestrian could still recover damages for their injuries, but the total award would be reduced by 30%, the portion of fault attributed to them. If the total damages amount to $100,000, the pedestrian would receive $70,000.
Now, consider a scenario where the pedestrian was more significantly at fault, such as if they had crossed against a red light while the driver was only driving slightly above the speed limit, but failed to stop in time. In this situation, the court might determine that the pedestrian was 80% at fault and the driver only 20% at fault. Under the same damages calculation, the pedestrian would recover only 20% of their total damages. If the damages were still $100,000, they would receive $20,000.
Calculating Damages in Comparative Negligence Cases
Comparative negligence plays a significant role in determining the outcome of a personal injury claim in Washington. When a claim is filed, one of the first steps is establishing the percentage of fault for each party involved. The determination directly affects the amount of compensation a claimant may receive.
The process of calculating damages in Washington involves several factors:
- Medical expenses: Includes the costs of hospitalization, surgeries, rehabilitation, and any ongoing treatment required as a result of the injury.
- Lost wages: If the claimant is unable to work because of their injury, they may seek compensation for the income they have lost.
- Pain and suffering: This is compensation for the physical pain and emotional distress caused by the accident and its consequences.
- Property damage: In cases where property is damaged in the accident, the cost of repairs or replacement is also included in the damages.
Once these factors are assessed, the final amount is adjusted based on the claimant’s degree of fault.
In personal injury claims insurance companies often play a key role in negotiations. Insurers may attempt to assign a higher percentage of fault to the injured party to reduce their payout. Because of this, claimants can benefit from working with a personal injury attorney who understands Washington negligence laws and can advocate for fair compensation.
Strategies in Legal Practice
In Washington’s pure comparative negligence system, attorneys use several strategies to build strong cases and maximize compensation for injured parties:
- Minimizing the Client’s Fault Percentage: Attorneys work to reduce the plaintiff’s fault by gathering evidence such as accident reports, witness statements, and expert testimony, showing that the other party bears more responsibility.
- Challenging the Defendant’s Claims: Defense attorneys may argue that the plaintiff was more at fault than claimed. In response, attorneys discredit these arguments by exposing inconsistencies in the defendant’s evidence or presenting other contributing factors.
- Negotiating with Insurance Companies: Insurance companies often try to assign a higher percentage of fault to plaintiffs to lower payouts. Attorneys familiar with Washington’s comparative negligence laws negotiate effectively to keep insurers from inflating the plaintiff’s responsibility unfairly.
- Utilizing Expert Witnesses: In disputes over fault, expert witnesses like accident reconstruction specialists or medical professionals provide objective testimony to clarify who was at fault and to what degree.
- Preparing for Settlement or Trial: Many comparative negligence cases settle before trial, but attorneys prepare litigation strategies that present evidence minimizing their client’s fault and maximizing recovery. They focus on making the fault apportionment process clear to juries if necessary.
An experienced personal injury attorney can help reduce the client’s liability and work to secure the best possible outcome, including fair compensation.
Handling Your Personal Injury Case in Washington
With the recognition that accidents often involve shared responsibility, Washington’s pure comparative negligence system offers a more balanced approach to personal injury cases. Comparative negligence law can make a significant impact on how claims are evaluated and influence both settlement negotiations and court outcomes.
The nuances of Washington personal injury cases often require expert guidance to handle effectively. At Russell & Hill, PLLC, our experienced personal injury team is here to guide you. We work diligently to help our clients secure the compensation they deserve so that they can focus on recovery. Contact us today for a free consultation by calling us at 800-529-0842 or send us a message here.