馃攳
What if you're both at fault for the car accident? | Vermont Accident Attorney R. Drew Palcsik - YouTube
Channel: unknown
[0]
hey everyone it's drew from champlain
[2]
valley law
[3]
in today's video i'll answer the
[5]
question
[6]
what is comparative negligence
[10]
[Music]
[15]
comparative negligence is the way
[17]
insurance companies and the courts
[20]
decide how to allocate responsibility or
[23]
fault for a personal injury in a
[26]
personal injury lawsuit
[28]
there is a plaintiff or the injured
[30]
person and a defendant
[32]
the person or business who is believed
[34]
to have caused the injuries
[36]
in other words the injured person is
[38]
saying that the defendant
[40]
is at fault for their injuries now in
[43]
some cases
[44]
the defendant or his or her insurance
[46]
company will
[47]
argue comparative negligence as a
[50]
defense
[51]
what this means is that they are
[53]
claiming that
[55]
you share responsibility or are to blame
[58]
for your own injuries the reason this
[61]
matters of course
[63]
is that it can reduce or eliminate
[65]
entirely
[66]
the value given to your injuries by an
[68]
insurance company
[70]
or a jury at trial comparative
[72]
negligence
[73]
is often used to assign fault after a
[76]
car accident
[77]
if two drivers both break a traffic law
[80]
and they end up in a collision then both
[83]
may be assigned
[84]
some degree of responsibility or fault
[88]
now many insurance companies will assign
[90]
faults
[91]
informally between drivers on a
[94]
percentage basis
[96]
so for instance you might hear an
[98]
insurance adjuster
[100]
tell you that they've accepted 50
[102]
percent liability
[103]
or 30 fault so what they're saying
[107]
in essence is that whatever the full
[109]
measure of harm that was done to you in
[111]
the collision
[113]
they're only going to agree to pay you
[115]
50
[116]
or maybe 30 percent of the value
[120]
when an insurance company decides on its
[122]
own
[123]
to decide that you are at fault for your
[126]
injuries
[126]
in whole or in part they usually give
[129]
you a low ball settlement offer
[131]
or maybe no offer at all this is one
[134]
reason
[135]
why people bring their cases to court so
[137]
a jury can hear
[139]
all of the evidence and decide for
[141]
themselves
[142]
who is really at fault for the crash now
[145]
if your case does go to court defense
[147]
lawyers will argue
[149]
comparative negligence with the hope
[151]
that they pay as little as possible for
[153]
your injuries
[155]
this will start during the discovery
[157]
process of the lawsuit
[158]
when they ask you questions about what
[160]
you were doing or what you were wearing
[162]
at the time of your injury for instance
[166]
a common defense tactic is to argue that
[168]
you fell on ice
[170]
because you weren't wearing proper shoes
[172]
at the time that you fell
[174]
or after a car accident the defense
[177]
might argue
[178]
that you didn't have your turn signal on
[180]
at the time of the crash
[182]
either way at the end of the case after
[185]
hearing
[186]
all of the evidence the jury gets to
[188]
decide
[189]
if you the injured person was in any way
[193]
at fault for the accident if so then the
[196]
jury will
[197]
apportion fault by assigning a
[199]
percentage of blame
[201]
both to you and to the defendant now
[204]
there are two main types of comparative
[206]
negligence rules
[207]
that are used in the vermont and new
[209]
york state courts
[211]
and these rules depend on the percentage
[213]
of negligence
[215]
that's assigned to the parties after an
[217]
accident
[218]
first let's talk about pure comparative
[221]
negligence
[222]
which is the rule in new york state
[224]
courts
[226]
the pure comparative negligence rule
[228]
allows the plaintiff to recover money
[231]
damages
[232]
even if they're assigned 99 percent of
[235]
the blame for the accident
[237]
in such a case the plaintiff can still
[240]
recover
[241]
as little as one percent of the damages
[244]
assessed against the defendant so
[247]
if a jury decides that the total harm
[250]
done to you
[251]
was worth a hundred thousand dollars if
[253]
you're assigned
[254]
99 percent of the fault you'll collect a
[257]
thousand dollars
[259]
a second approach is called modified
[262]
comparative negligence
[263]
and this is the rule in the vermont
[265]
state courts
[267]
the modified comparative negligence rule
[270]
means that
[270]
injured people cannot recover any money
[273]
at trial
[274]
if they themselves are more at fault
[277]
than the defendant
[279]
in other words in vermont courts if you
[282]
are even slightly more responsible for
[284]
causing your injury
[286]
than the defendant is you recover
[288]
nothing at all
[290]
now despite the concerns you might have
[292]
about comparative fault
[294]
playing a role in your case it's not
[296]
always a problem
[297]
for your recovery over the years i've
[300]
spoken with many people
[302]
who are rightly upset that an insurance
[304]
company
[305]
has only accepted 50 percent of the
[308]
fault
[308]
for an accident but as we've seen in our
[312]
other videos
[313]
fault is only one element of a
[315]
successful injury claim
[317]
and here's why it matters if you have a
[320]
situation
[321]
where you're injured in a crash and
[323]
you've incurred tens of thousands of
[325]
dollars in medical bills and lost wages
[328]
but the other driver only has twenty
[331]
five thousand dollars of insurance
[333]
there's a good chance you're going to
[335]
collect all of that insurance money
[338]
even if the other driver accepts only
[340]
half the fault
[342]
the reason for this is because the total
[345]
value
[346]
of your claim including medical expenses
[349]
lost wages pain and suffering and other
[351]
damages
[352]
will far exceed the available insurance
[355]
money
[356]
so even if that's reduced by 50 percent
[359]
or so
[360]
it's still going to max out the
[362]
available coverage
[363]
of a relatively small insurance policy
[367]
so your key takeaways from today's video
[370]
are these
[371]
number one comparative negligence is a
[374]
tool
[374]
used to assign blame an apportioned
[377]
fault
[377]
between parties after an accident
[381]
number two new york follows the pure
[384]
comparative fault rule
[386]
meaning that if you prove that the
[388]
defendant was
[389]
at all responsible for your injuries you
[392]
can collect something
[394]
based on the percentage of faults
[396]
assigned to either party
[399]
on the other hand vermont follows the
[402]
modified comparative fault rule
[404]
meaning that the defendant must be more
[407]
at fault than you are
[408]
for you to collect anything at all and
[411]
finally
[412]
number three even if the insurance
[415]
company
[415]
accepts something less than full
[417]
responsibility for your injuries
[420]
you may still be able to collect all of
[422]
the available insurance coverage
[424]
depending on the nature and extent of
[426]
your injuries and how much insurance
[428]
there is available
[430]
so that's it for today's video we hope
[432]
you found it helpful
[434]
if you did please hit the like button
[436]
and subscribe to our channel
[438]
if there's anything you'd like to hear
[439]
more about let us know in the comment
[441]
section below
[443]
thanks for watching we'll see you next
[448]
time
[450]
[Music]
[462]
so
[467]
you
Most Recent Videos:
You can go back to the homepage right here: Homepage