In many motor vehicle accidents and other personal injuries, fault does not rest with just one person. When multiple parties share blame for an accident, Illinois uses a modified comparative negligence rule to divide fault. This allows an injured person to pursue compensation from the party that hurt them, even if they share partial responsibility for the incident.
Before states adopted these systems, many followed harsher contributory negligence rules, which barred an injured person from recovering anything if they were even slightly at fault, even 1%. Courts and legislatures recognized this approach often produced unfair results. Modified comparative fault strikes a more balanced approach, allowing recovery to reflect each party’s actual share of responsibility.
How Modified Comparative Fault Works
Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116, injured individuals can recover financial compensation if their share of blame is below 51%, i.e., they are partly at fault. However, their total payout is reduced by their percentage of fault. Being 51% or more responsible (i.e., mostly) prevents the individual from seeking any financial recovery.
For example, if total damages equal $400,000 and you are assigned 30% fault, your final payout will be $280,000. If your fault reaches 51%, you cannot receive any money.
Comparative Fault vs. Mitigation of Damages
Comparative fault and mitigation of damages both affect how much compensation you can recover. But comparative fault looks at your role in causing the accident itself, such as whether you were speeding or crossed against a signal. Mitigation of damages looks at what you did after the accident to avoid making your injuries worse, such as seeking timely medical treatment and following your doctor’s recommendations. A failure to mitigate, like skipping physical therapy or delaying treatment, can reduce your recovery even if you share no fault for the original accident.
Where Comparative Fault Allegations Commonly Arise
Shared responsibility claims happen in many personal injury cases, but insurers argue comparative fault most heavily when the claim value is high.
Examples include:
- Car crashes where both drivers contributed by violating traffic laws
- Pedestrian accidents where an individual allegedly crossed outside crosswalks or against signals
- Slip and fall cases where property owners claim guests failed to watch their step or ignored warnings
- Motorcycle accidents where insurers blame riders for riding recklessly or not wearing proper protective gear
- Multi-vehicle pileups where more than one vehicle contributed to a crash
To be sure, insurers regularly raise comparative fault arguments to reduce an injured person’s overall payout, even without strong evidence of shared fault. Therefore, you should not take it as fact if an insurer is blaming you for your injury. This could merely be a negotiating tactic to try to minimize exposure.
Contact an Experienced Attorney if You Are Being Blamed for an Accident
An experienced St. Charles personal injury lawyer can spot fault claims early, helping to block false allegations and protect the full value of your case. If you are worried about shared fault, Feagans Law Group can explain how Illinois laws apply to your situation. Contact us today to set up a consultation.