Texas follows modified comparative negligence laws for personal injury cases. Modified comparative negligence allows you to file a claim for damages even if you share some of the responsibility for the accident. 

Modified comparative negligence can help you if you’re partially responsible for an accident. However, insurance companies can also use it against you to reduce the compensation you’re owed. 

It’s essential to understand how comparative negligence works. You must also know what to do if someone uses the law to defend against your personal injury claim. 

51% Rule and Modified Comparative Negligence

States with modified comparative negligence laws follow the 50% or 51% bar rule. Your share of fault must be less than the percentage set by the bar rule to collect damages. If you exceed the limit, the insurance company will deny your claim.

Since Texas follows the 51% bar rule, you can’t recover damages if your share of responsibility exceeds 50%. However, you’re eligible for compensation if you’re up to 50% at fault. 

Compensation and Modified Comparative Negligence

If the other party is 100% responsible, you can seek full damages during the settlement or in court. However, Texas’ modified comparative negligence laws state that your compensation can be reduced if you’re partially responsible for the accident and injuries. 

Assume that the court awards you $100,000 in damages but finds that you’re 30% at fault. The court can reduce your damages by 30%, awarding you $70,000. 

Evidence Used to Determine Fault in Personal Injury Cases 

Insurance companies begin investigating accidents as soon as a claim is filed. However, it can take several weeks or months to review the evidence and determine fault. Some of the evidence used to determine fault includes the following:

• Police reports
• Statements from involved parties
• Witness statements 
• Photos and videos
• Medical records 
• Expert testimony
• Accident reconstruction

After reviewing the evidence, the insurance company will assign fault. Then, it will begin mounting a comparative negligence defense if the plaintiff is partially responsible. 

Criteria for a Comparative Negligence Defense 

The evidence paints a picture of what occurred during the accident. But it’s just part of the puzzle. Defendants also must meet the criteria to prove comparative negligence personal injury claims.

Mounting a defense is complicated, even though defendants only need to meet two criteria. First, they must demonstrate that the plaintiff could have prevented the accident but failed to act appropriately. Then, they need to prove that a reasonable person would have taken the necessary actions.

The insurance company might argue that the case meets the criteria even if it doesn’t. This tactic is used to save insurance companies money by denying claims or reducing compensation. Thus, be wary of settlement offers from the insurance company. 

Have an attorney review the case to determine if you’re eligible for additional compensation. You might discover that you aren’t responsible or your shared responsibility is much lower than the insurance company claims. 

Example of Modified Comparative Negligence

Modified comparative negligence is used to defend against all types of personal injury claims. It’s commonly applied in car accidents. The evidence in these cases often shows that two or more parties contributed to the accident. 

For example, assume Bob and Joe are traveling in different directions on the interstate. Bob turns left at a red light and hits Joe’s car. Joe suffers a broken leg and concussion, so he files a claim for compensation.

The evidence shows that Joe was driving 15 miles over the posted speed limit at the time of the accident. The insurance company argues that Joe could have avoided the accident if he had been driving the speed limit. At the same time, the insurance company also knows that Bob is responsible since he ran a red light.

The insurance company determines that Joe is 40% at fault, while Bob is 60% responsible. Joe is awarded $200,000 for his injuries but only receives $120,000.

Keep in mind that this is a straightforward example of modified comparative negligence. These cases are usually much more complex and require extensive investigations. 

Consult with an Attorney Before Settling a Claim

Insurance companies rely heavily on modified comparative negligence laws when defending claims. Sometimes, they have evidence that proves the plaintiff was partially at fault. However, that isn’t always the case. 

Consult an attorney before agreeing to a settlement that’s been reduced due to comparative negligence. Your attorney will review the evidence to determine if you share any responsibility for the accident. Additionally, your lawyer will value your claim to ensure the settlement offer is fair.