How is Comparative Fault Related to Personal Injury in Washington?
Many of the families across America impacted by an accident or injury situation may not have a very good idea of how comparative fault affects the process of getting compensation as an accident victim. The system for using comparative fault and other elements of a lawsuit or claim differs according to the state where the legal action is being pursued.
In the state of Washington, a comparative fault system is in use for determining how to collect damages for accidents from the parties found to be at fault. What the comparative fault system does is replace a “100%” or “all or nothing” fault system with a more nuanced definition of fault and liability for damages. Many residents hear about this predominantly through cases involving a vehicle accident in Washington, as this kind of system relates directly to finding for damages in a roadside personal injury.
In a comparative fault analysis, the legal process finds a percentage of the total fault and assigns that to each party in the accident. Instead of just pointing the finger at a primary causation and at-fault driver, law enforcement, public officials and legal teams work harder to establish a more detailed picture of what happened on the road. For example, returning to the scenario of a car accident, a judicial process could look at a driver running a stop sign as more than 50% at fault, while another driver who is inattentive to the road could receive some kind of 10% or relative fault number.
However, within the system of comparative fault for Washington State, some Seattle experts have determined that a term called “joint and several liabilities” can be used to provide even more chances for a victim to get what he or she is due under the law.
One type of situation where a joint and several liabilities rule would come into play is when two or three different at fault drivers with various comparative faults cannot all pay their share of the costs. Under a conventional comparative fault system, some of those costs may be immune from recovery by the victim and the victim’s legal counsel. However, if legal counsel implements a joint and several liabilities application to the case, it can end in one at fault party paying all of the compensation for a personal injury, as well as lost wages and pain and suffering damages.
Finding comparative fault is hardly a simple process. In their findings, legal teams often use case precedent, traffic-engineering details, and much more to assess specific comparative fault for parties. Eyewitnesses and documentation may be necessary, which is why experts always counsel those involved in road accidents to document as much as possible to protect themselves. Another big part of what a personal injury legal team can do is to break down the results and ramifications of comparative fault and everything else on the books in Washington to give their client an accurate picture of what to expect from a case, claim or award.
Anyone who has been negatively impacted by a personal injury—whether it’s road-related, work-related, or just related to a public liability—can find that a quick consultation with a local Washington personal injury lawyer can start to get them informed on what options are available for a specific case. The skilled attorneys at the Bernard Law Group led by Kirk Bernard know how the plaintiff will work through considerations such as Washington’s comparative fault system and more to arrive at the results they need for getting compensation to pay medical bills and recover from an accident or injury. To learn more about how you may be able to receive compensation for your injuries, contact The Bernard Law Group today for a free consultation.
