Washington is one of twelve states that has a pure comparative fault doctrine. Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault on the part of the claimant will reduce the amount awarded to them by their share of the total fault for the accident. Let's consider an example to illustrate this. Suppose a plaintiff's total damages are evaluated at $50,000, and it is determined that the plaintiff is 30% at fault. In such a scenario, the award to the plaintiff would be reduced by $15,000, leaving the defendant liable for $35,000.
One notable aspect of Washington's comparative fault system is that a defendant can still be held liable in a negligence action even if the plaintiff bears the majority of fault for the accident. This principle was established in the case of Veit, Nelson v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Corp., where the court clarified that pure comparative fault allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault. The defendant remains accountable for their proportionate share of fault, emphasizing the fairness of the system.
A notable case that exemplifies comparative negligence is Richardson v. U.S. In this automobile accident case, the plaintiff, who had the right of way on a highway, collided with a large truck that had pulled out from a private driveway. The court found both the plaintiff and the truck driver negligent. Despite the defendant's failure to yield the right of way, the court determined that the plaintiff's intoxication contributed to the collision. As a result, the plaintiff's total damages were reduced by 50% due to their own negligence.
Comparative negligence can also arise in situations where a person voluntarily rides with an intoxicated driver. If it can be established that the person knew or should have known that the driver was intoxicated, they may be considered contributorily negligent. In such cases, a reasonable person exercising ordinary care for their safety would not have ridden in the vehicle. RCW 5.40.060 elaborates on this aspect of comparative negligence.
In personal injury cases, comparative fault is an affirmative defense raised by the defendant to reduce their liability for an accident. As an affirmative defense, the burden is on the defendant to plead and prove that the claimant was also at fault for the accident. The case of Godfrey v. State establishes this burden of proof.
Understanding the intricacies of comparative fault is essential for navigating personal injury claims in Washington State. If you have been involved in an accident and believe that comparative fault may be a factor, it is advisable to seek the guidance of an experienced personal injury lawyer. They can help assess your case, determine the potential impact of comparative fault, and advocate for your rights to secure the compensation you deserve.
Please note that every case is unique. Do not hesitate to call us at (206) 673-1612 for a free consultation even if you think you were partially at fault for the accident.