Understanding Comparative Fault: When a Jury Splits Responsibility
When a case goes to trial, many clients assume it’s a straightforward matter of proving the defendant was at fault. But in some cases—particularly premises liability and auto accidents—the jury may be asked to evaluate whether both parties share responsibility. This is known as comparative fault, and it can have a significant impact on the outcome of a case.
What Is Comparative Fault?
In Pennsylvania, juries are allowed to assign percentages of blame to each party involved in a lawsuit. This means that even if the defendant is found to be negligent, the jury may also decide that the plaintiff (the person bringing the lawsuit) was partially at fault for their own injuries.
A Common Example: Slip and Fall Cases
Take, for example, a premises liability case—often referred to as a “slip and fall” or “trip and fall.” Suppose you’re injured at a business or public space due to poor lighting, an uneven walkway, or wet stairs. The property owner might not admit wrongdoing but will often argue that you were careless—perhaps not watching where you were walking or moving too quickly.
In cases like this, the jury is asked two separate questions:
- Was the defendant negligent?
- Was the plaintiff also negligent?
If the answer to both is yes, the jury must apportion fault, assigning a percentage of blame to each party that adds up to 100%.
How It Affects a Verdict
- If the plaintiff is found to be less than 50% at fault, they can still recover damages. However, the award is reduced by their percentage of fault.
Example: A jury awards $1,000,000 in damages. They find the defendant 80% at fault and the plaintiff 20% at fault. The plaintiff’s recovery would be reduced to $800,000. - If the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, they receive nothing. This is a legal threshold in Pennsylvania—plaintiffs who are primarily responsible for their own injuries cannot recover damages.
Example: A plaintiff is found 60% at fault, and the defendant 40%. The plaintiff gets no compensation, regardless of how serious the injuries may be.
When Is Comparative Fault an Issue?
- Frequently seen in:
- Premises liability (e.g., slip and fall cases)
- Motor vehicle accidents (e.g., failure to yield, speeding through intersections)
- Premises liability (e.g., slip and fall cases)
- Rarely an issue in:
- Medical malpractice cases. Since these typically involve injuries from surgeries or treatment, it’s hard to argue the patient caused their own harm.
Why It Matters
Understanding comparative fault is crucial for setting expectations before trial. At Zimmaro Law, we prepare every case with these possibilities in mind. We gather the facts, anticipate the defense’s arguments, and craft a strategy that aims to minimize any suggestion that our client bears responsibility.
If you’ve been injured and are unsure how fault might be shared or assessed in your case, we’re here to help you navigate that uncertainty with confidence and clarity.