Here's something most Irvine car accident victims don't realize: fault percentages aren't determined by some objective formula. They're negotiated. And insurance companies exploit this fact to reduce your settlement by assigning you fault—even in accidents that weren't your fault.
As an Irvine car accident lawyer who has handled these negotiations for over three decades, I've watched insurance adjusters assign 20%, 30%, even 40% fault to victims in clear-liability accidents. Most victims accept these percentages without challenge, never realizing they just gave away tens of thousands of dollars.
How California's Pure Comparative Negligence Works
California is one of only 13 states with a "pure comparative negligence" system. Under California Civil Code § 1714, you can recover damages even if you're 99% at fault—your recovery is simply reduced by your fault percentage.
Example: If your damages total $100,000 and you're assigned 30% fault, you recover $70,000.
This sounds fair in theory. In practice, it gives insurance companies a powerful tool to reduce every claim by arguing you share some blame.
The Tactics Adjusters Use
After handling thousands of Irvine auto accident cases, I've seen the same tactics repeatedly:
"You could have avoided it." You were rear-ended at a stoplight, but the adjuster argues you should have been watching your mirrors more carefully. This isn't legitimate comparative negligence—you're not required to have superhuman awareness.
"You failed to mitigate." You delayed seeking medical treatment, so the adjuster claims you made your injuries worse. Delayed treatment affects damages, not fault for the accident itself.
"You were distracted." You were adjusting your radio when the other driver ran a red light. Unless your distraction actually prevented you from avoiding an avoidable collision, it's not comparative negligence.
These arguments are designed to make you accept a reduced settlement without pushback. Most victims don't realize these fault assignments are negotiable.
When Comparative Negligence Legitimately Applies
True comparative negligence exists when both drivers violated traffic laws or failed to exercise reasonable care. If you were speeding when another driver ran a red light, a jury might assign you 20% fault. If you failed to swerve into an open lane to avoid a collision you saw coming, that could constitute comparative negligence.
But an insurance adjuster assigning you 30% fault because "you could have braked sooner" in a rear-end collision? That's a negotiating tactic, not a legitimate fault determination.
How to Fight Back
The fault percentage the adjuster initially assigns is an opening offer, not a final determination. Here's how to challenge it:
Document the other driver's violations. Police reports, witness statements, and traffic citations establish how the other driver breached their duty of care.
Don't accept recorded statements without guidance. Insurance adjusters use recorded statements to find inconsistencies that support higher fault assignments.
Consider accident reconstruction for serious cases. Expert analysis of speeds, reaction times, and collision dynamics often reduces unfair fault percentages by 20-40 points.
Consult an attorney before accepting any fault assignment. An experienced car accident attorney in Irvine knows which fault percentages are defensible and which are inflated tactics.
The Bottom Line
Comparative negligence is where most Irvine car accident cases get decided—not in the courtroom, but during settlement negotiations when an adjuster assigns you a fault percentage and hopes you won't challenge it.
Don't accept that percentage without understanding your rights. That 30% fault assignment could be negotiable down to 10% or even zero—and on a $100,000 claim, that's a $20,000 difference.
If you've been injured in a car accident in Irvine or Orange County and an insurance company is assigning you partial fault, get a professional evaluation before accepting their numbers. What they're offering may be far less than what you deserve.
