The Legal Examiner Affiliate Network The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner search instagram avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner The Legal Examiner
Skip to main content
Two Angry Motorists Arguing Over Responsibility For Car Accident

Comparative negligence is a legal concept that at-fault drivers and their insurance companies use to try to negate or minimize their liability to you for the injuries that their negligence has caused you. Simply put, they want to avoid being held accountable by blaming you.

Under Michigan’s comparative negligence law that would apply to your Detroit car accident case, any recovery for pain and suffering compensation and/or economic damages that you obtain against the at-fault driver would be reduced by your percentage of fault for causing or contributing to the crash.

For example, if you are able to recover $1 million from the at-fault driver, but you are found to have been 10% at-fault, then your recovery would be reduced by 10% or $100,000 to $900,000.

Importantly, if the at-fault driver is able to prove that you were 51% or more at-fault, then you will be barred from suing for pain and suffering compensation.

However, you will still be able to proceed on your economic loss claim, subject to a reduction in your recovery that reflects that your percentage of fault.

If the insurance company for the at-fault driver who caused your Detroit car accident case is raising comparative negligence as a defense, then you need to know the following:

  • How a finding of comparative negligence on your part could affect your claim for pain and suffering compensation?
  • How a finding of comparative negligence on your part could affect your claim for economic loss damages?
  • How if at all does comparative negligence affect a crash victim’s right to recover No-Fault benefits?
  • Does comparative fault affect your mini tort claim for vehicle damage repair costs?

To learn more, please check out my page on “comparative negligence.”

Comments for this article are closed.