What is Comparative Fault in a Georgia Personal Injury Case?

If you were recently injured in an accident or in another type of incident in the Macon area and you believe another party is liable, you might be thinking about filing a personal injury claim. In researching personal injury lawsuits, or in discussing your case with friends or family members, you might have come across the term “comparative fault” or “comparative negligence.” Some states formally use one of these terms in their statutory law (they both essentially mean the same thing), while states like Georgia do have a form of comparative fault, but it is not described as such in the Georgia Code. Other states are known as “contributory negligence” states, and while the term might sound similar, the results of applying this law in a personal injury case are very different.

In short, both comparative fault and contributory negligence laws concern the ability of a plaintiff to obtain damages when the plaintiff is also partially at fault or partially negligent. Our experienced Macon personal injury lawyers can explain in more detail.

Understanding Different Comparative Fault Laws 

In order to understand how Georgia comparative fault law works, we want to provide more clarity about these types of laws in general. What are the differences between comparative fault states, and how do contributory negligence states differ? All of these have to do with a personal injury case in which the defendant alleges that the plaintiff also bears responsibility or fault for their injuries.

First, comparative fault (or comparative negligence) states generally fall into one of three categories: pure comparative fault, modified comparative fault at 51 percent, and modified comparative fault at 50 percent. What do these terms mean? In a pure comparative fault state, a plaintiff can recover damages regardless of whether they are as little as 1 percent at fault or as much as 99 percent at fault. In other words, the plaintiff simply cannot be entirely at fault. Then, the plaintiff’s damages award is reduced by their percentage of fault.

Modified comparative fault states bar a plaintiff’s recovery only if the plaintiff is either 51 percent or more, or 50 percent or more, at fault — it depends on the state. Then, if the plaintiff is less than 51 percent or 50 percent at fault (depending on the state), the plaintiff will recover damages but the damages award will be reduced by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault. Georgia is a modified comparative fault state, and it is one of the comparative fault states that permits a plaintiff to recover if they are less than 50 percent at fault.

Contributory Negligence is Different

In states that have contributory negligence laws — and Georgia is not one of them — a plaintiff is barred from recovery if they are even 1 percent at fault.

How Comparative Fault Applies to a Case 

Are you concerned that you were partially at fault for an accident or another type of incident in which you got hurt, even though you believe another party is primarily at fault? You should never bring up the issue of comparative fault yourself. This is a defense strategy that the defendant may bring up under Georgia law. To be clear, the defendant might try to argue that you could have avoided the injuries they caused by using ordinary care, or that you are partially at fault for your injuries and that your damages award should be reduced.

You can work with your lawyer to present evidence that shows you were not at fault and that your damages award should not be reduced. Just because a defendant has raised the issue of comparative fault does not mean that you will have your award reduced or that you will be barred from recovery.

Contact a Macon Personal Injury Lawyer Today 

Do you need assistance with your personal injury case? An experienced Macon personal injury attorney at the Law Offices of Buzzell, Welsh & Hill can help you today. Contact us to learn more.

Sources:

law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-11/article-1/51-11-7

law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-51/chapter-12/article-2/51-12-33