To work with the problem of blame and fault in claims involving injuries caused by negligence, certain states have adopted various philosophies regarding claims eligibility.
In many cases, confusion can spawn from unclear circumstances of who is precisely to blame, and who retains the right to file for damage compensation.
After all, if two parties collide into each other on the road, both drivers violating different laws or standard safety protocols, there must be a system to decide who can sue for what damages.
Used in many states, a principle known as pure comparative negligence allows injury compensation to be divided according to each party's degree of fault.
At first, this system can seem like an odd way of discussing liability.
According to the general idea of comparative negligence, blame is broken down into percentages.
In this way, one party can be found more or less at fault for a certain incident, but both can try to gather compensation for their injuries or damages according to what they were not liable for.
An example could be that a person is thirty percent responsible for a car accident because they did not signal while anther person was tailgating them.
As a result, they are allowed to pursue seventy percent of the total amount compensation they could be awarded, the percent of the fault that was not theirs.
However, the other person in the accident may pursue the other thirty percent of the total compensation available to that driver, which is then applied to their injuries and damages.
This system is preferred in some states, as insurance claims may not allow certain expenses to be covered because of fault.
These states see this system as an opportunity to recover some of these funds to cushion medical or automotive expenses.
If you would like to learn more about the details of this kind of law, contact a personal injury attorney.