When someone is injured due to another’s negligence – whether in a car accident, a slip and fall, or a dog bite – they often have the right to pursue compensation. But what happens if the injured person is also partially at fault for the accident? This is where the legal concept of comparative negligence comes into play. Understanding how this rule works is critical for anyone considering pursuing a personal injury claim in Indiana.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal principle used to determine fault and calculate damages in personal injury cases when more than one party is at fault. Instead of using an “all-or-nothing” approach, comparative negligence allows the court or insurance company to apportion blame among all involved parties.
Indiana’s Modified Comparative Negligence Rule
Indiana follows what is known as a modified comparative negligence system with a 51% bar rule. This means that:
- You can still recover damages if you are 50% or less at fault.
- However, if you are found to be 51% or more at fault, you are barred from recovering any compensation.
This rule is codified under Indiana Code § 34-51-2-6, and it significantly impacts the outcome of personal injury claims. It encourages a fair evaluation of fault while also limiting claims from those who bear the majority of responsibility for their own injuries.
Exceptions
In claims against an Indiana government agency or one of its subdivisions, the stricter “pure contributory negligence” doctrine is used, which means the injured party cannot recover if they contributed to the accident in any way. In other words, even if you as the injured party are 1% responsible for the accident, you won’t receive any compensation.
How It Works in Practice
Let’s say you were involved in a car accident where you were speeding, but the other driver ran a red light. The court finds you 10% at fault and the other driver 90% at fault. If your damages total $100,000, your recovery would be reduced by 10%, leaving you with $90,000 in compensation.
On the other hand, if you were found 55% at fault for an auto accident, Indiana law would prevent you from collecting any damages at all.
Under these same facts, if a police officer were to run a red light and cause the collision, and the court places you 10% at fault and the police agency 90% at fault, you would not be able to recover any compensation.
Why Comparative Negligence Matters
Understanding comparative negligence is crucial for two reasons:
- Insurance Negotiations: Insurance companies often use comparative negligence arguments to reduce settlement payouts. Knowing how the system works can help you challenge unfair fault assessments.
- Litigation Strategy: If your case goes to court, how fault is allocated will directly impact whether you receive compensation and how much.
Comparative negligence plays a vital role in determining liability and damages in Indiana personal injury cases. The modified system attempts to balance fairness and accountability by allowing injured parties to recover damages even when they share some of the blame—so long as their responsibility doesn’t exceed 50%. If you’re involved in a personal injury case, consulting an experienced Indiana personal injury attorney can help ensure your rights are protected and your share of fault is properly assessed.
