How the Modified Comparative Fault Rule is Affecting Personal Injury Cases in Court

Lawmakers made a drastic change in Florida’s comparative fault rule in 2023, and the effects of that change are now showing up in court, revealing some patterns that plaintiffs in personal injury cases need to be aware of. The best personal injury attorneys have been anticipating these results and adjusting how they argue cases, but the outcomes in court are catching some accident victims by surprise.

At Searcy Denney Tallahassee, we have decades of experience effectively securing the maximum compensation available for our clients, and part of that process involves keeping them informed about how the law can affect their recovery. If you contact our team for a free, confidential consultation to review the specific details of your situation, we can explain how revisions to the comparative fault rule could affect your case. For general background, here are some observations on how the modified comparative fault rule is affecting personal injury cases in court.

Understanding How the Rule Changed

To make sense of the changes in court cases, it is helpful to understand the comparative fault rule in Florida and how it has changed.

The Doctrine of Comparative Fault

Many problems in life are caused by two or more factors that occur simultaneously. For instance, you might be driving a little too fast for the wet conditions on the road when a driver in front of you suddenly swerves into your lane, and your cars collide. Both of you are partially responsible for the collision. If you had been driving at a more reasonable speed, you could have slowed down enough to reduce or prevent the impact. If the other driver had looked before changing lanes, they would have seen your car and presumably been smart enough to stay in their own lane.

In situations where injuries result from the actions of two or more people, the court will divide the fault between those people based on the evidence showing the degree to which they are each at fault. In the example above, the driver who changed lanes without looking might be 90% at fault, while the driver who was operating a little too fast for wet pavement might be 10% at fault. The degree of fault is compared between the parties involved.

Modification of the Previous Rule

When someone is hurt in a situation like a car accident or the malfunction of a defective product, if the injured person contributed to the cause of the injury, they are considered to have a share of comparative fault. Under the comparative fault rule that used to be in effect in Florida, the share of compensation the injured person could receive would be reduced by that person’s share of fault. Now, under the modified rule, the injured person’s share of fault could prevent them from recovering anything. That is because there is now a cut-off for recovery.

Formerly, Florida operated under a pure comparative negligence doctrine. Someone who was hurt could recover compensation from others even if the injured person was primarily responsible for the incident that caused the injuries. For instance, if a motorcyclist hit the pavement while going around a curve and 70% of the blame was on the motorcyclist for going into the curve too fast and 30% was the fault of a dump truck that spilled debris in the road, the motorcyclist could recover 30% of the damage award from the trucking company.

However, the new rule only allows recovery when the injured person bears no more than 50% of the blame. In the car accident example above, the injured driver, who was 10% at fault, would be able to recover compensation for 90% of their losses. There would be a 10% reduction in their award to account for their 10% share of fault. If the damage claim amounted to $100,000, they would receive $90,000 instead.

By contrast, in the motorcycle accident example, the injured biker would not be able to recover any compensation, no matter how severe their injuries were or how irresponsible the trucking company was. That is because the motorcyclist’s share of fault was greater than 50%.

Impact on Court Cases Since the Rule Changed

While evidence of fault has always been important in personal injury cases, the details have taken on greater importance because of the comparative fault limitation. Determining whether an accident victim was 50% or 51% at fault has become an all-or-nothing matter. Now more than ever, it is important to start collecting evidence right away while the quality is strongest. This includes:

• Talking to potential witnesses while their memories are fresh
• Searching for video footage before it can be automatically recorded over
• Taking photos of the accident scene before the skid marks fade
• Recording information about the conditions at the scene of the accident before those conditions change

Because defense attorneys have a way to end a case if they can demonstrate that the injured person was more than 50% at fault, they are now filing motions for summary judgment early on in personal injury cases. This can accelerate the pace at which a plaintiff needs to be prepared to argue the details of fault and negligence in the case.

Working With the Right Personal Injury Lawyer Makes All the Difference

Some personal injury law firms try to settle cases quickly so they can do a large volume of business. They may view the details as not important.

At Searcy Denney Tallahassee, however, we know how much the details matter when it comes to securing full compensation for our clients. Details determine whether a case succeeds or is dismissed. But they also form the basis for maximum recovery. We focus on the big picture and all the details because we know that is the best way to get the results our clients deserve.

If you’ve been injured in an accident that was caused by another person’s irresponsible conduct, we invite you to schedule a free consultation to discuss your best options for recovery.