The Comparative Fault Defense in Truck Accident Claims

Basically, the comparative fault defense is the legal equivalent of a second-half comeback. Law enforcement and insurance company investigators assign fault to a drive in a truck accident based solely on the evidence available at the scene. Legal doctrines, like comparative fault, could change that determination.

Like most states, Texas is a modified comparative fault state. If a tortfeasor (negligent driver) is at least 51 percent responsible for a wreck, the victim is entitled to a proportionate share of damages. More on that below.

These damages usually include money for economic losses, such as medical bills, and noneconomic losses, such as pain and suffering. In many cases, mostly because the injuries in truck accident claims are so severe, a Sugar Land truck accident lawyer can obtain additional punitive damages as well.

Substantial Contribution

The comparative fault defense only applies if both drivers’ negligence substantially contributed to the wreck. Let’s break these two components down.

Negligence is basically a lack of care. Truck drivers and other commercial drivers have a higher duty of care than noncommercial operators. So, it’s easier for a Missouri City personal injury lawyer to prove that a truck driver breached his/her duty of care.

Truck drivers have a very small margin of error, because of the higher legal responsibility. Therefore, almost any driving mistake is a lack of care.

Driver fatigue is a good example. Driving after eighteen consecutive awake hours is like driving with a .05 BAC level. Fatigue, like alcohol, impairs judgment ability and motor skills. .05 is above the legal limit for commercial drivers, but not for noncommercial drivers, at least in most cases.

Substantial contribution follows roughly the same principles. If a driver was speeding 5mph over the limit, that excessive speed probably didn’t substantially contribute to a wreck. If a driver was speeding 15mph over the limit, that’s different.

Jury’s Decision

If the judge believes the victim’s negligence substantially contributed to a wreck, the judge will allow jurors to consider the comparative fault defense.

After they consider the evidence represented, jurors must divide responsibility on a percentage basis (80-20, 50-50, and so on). Normally, jurors don’t know about the 51 percent threshold, so they don’t know the impact of their division.

Jurors may only consider credible evidence. For example, Jill might testify that she was speeding about 10mph over the limit. However, an analysis of the Event Data Recorder in Jill’s vehicle might show she was speeding 20mph over the limit. Jurors must then decide who (or what) to believe, Jill or the computer in her vehicle.

The seat belt defense, another form of contributory negligence, only applies to the damages in the case. Wearing, or not wearing, a seat belt has nothing to do with causing, or not causing, a wreck. However, the failure to wear a seat belt could contribute to the extent of the victim’s injuries.

In such a situation, jurors must decide if the victim’s failure to wear a seat belt, instead of the tortfeasor’s negligence, substantially caused injury.

Reach Out to a Diligent Harris County Attorney

Injury victims are entitled to significant compensation. For a confidential consultation with an experienced personal injury attorney in Missouri City, contact the Henrietta Ezeoke Law Firm. The sooner you contact us, the sooner we start working for you.