Personal injury
Comparative negligence
California's rule that a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their own share of fault but never barred, even when the plaintiff was mostly to blame.
What it is
Comparative negligence divides responsibility for an accident among everyone whose carelessness caused it, including the injured person. The plaintiff's damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
The California rule
In Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975), the California Supreme Court replaced the old all-or-nothing contributory negligence rule with pure comparative negligence. A plaintiff found 30 percent at fault for $100,000 in damages recovers $70,000. A plaintiff found 80 percent at fault still recovers 20 percent; unlike many states, California has no 50 or 51 percent bar.
Proposition 51 (1986), codified at Civil Code 1431.2, adds a second layer when there are several defendants. Each defendant's share of non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, is several only, in proportion to its fault. Economic damages, such as medical bills and lost wages, remain joint and several, so one defendant can be made to pay all of them.
Why it matters to a plaintiff firm
Adjusters negotiate fault percentages as hard as they negotiate damages, and every point of assigned fault comes straight off the settlement. Firms lock down liability evidence early: the police report, photographs, scene measurements, witness statements, vehicle data and video that may be overwritten within days. With several defendants, Proposition 51 also makes it worth naming every party who shares the blame.
Sources
General information about California and federal rules, not legal advice. Rules change and every case turns on its facts: check the statute and your own analysis before relying on a date or a figure.