Comparative Fault vs. Contributory Negligence – Which Clause Does Texas Use?

All personal injury cases are based on proving who is “at fault” for the accident that caused the injury. Proving negligence isn’t often a black and white situation because there are many factors and many different “levels” of negligence in each and every case. Some states participate in what is known as shared fault clauses, which allow for plaintiffs to seek a reduced amount of compensation even if they’re still partially at fault for the accident.

Proving negligence is based on the following factors:

• A dangerous condition existed on the property that resulted in an injury.
• The agency knew about the condition, or should have been known about it, but it wasn’t resolved.
• The owner of the property knew about the dangerous condition and had ample time to resolve it, but did not do so.
• The injury was not a result of your own reckless or hazardous behavior.

As you can see, there are a number of variable factors here, which could be difficult in proving clear-cut “fault.” Perhaps both you and the property owner were negligent. In this case, the negligence will be considered shared. Shared negligence falls into two categories: contributory negligence and comparative negligence.

Contributory Negligence

In contributory negligence cases, the clause states that if you contributed to the negligence at all, you are not allowed to place the fault on someone else; therefore, you cannot claim compensation for it. Many states follow the contributory negligence clause, but Texas is not one of them.

Comparative Negligence

Texas does follow the comparative negligence clause. Within this clause, fault can be shared and compensation can be awarded. The first step is determining what percentage each party is at fault. Then, the compensation is calculated based on that percentage. For example, if you are in an auto accident and you are found to be 20% at fault and the other driver is considered 80% at fault, you will receive compensation reduced by your fault percentage. Your compensation will be calculated in the traditional means, based on medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering, and then reduced by your fault percentage.

So, if your damages total $100,000, you will be able to receive $80,000. In the situation of a slip and fall case, the results will be calculated the same. If the property owner was only 40% at fault for your injury because they neglected to fix something on their property, but you were found 60% at fault because you were not exercising caution while on their property, your compensation will be reduced by 60%. Contact an experienced Houston personal injury attorney to help you determine factors that may contribute to your fault percentage.

Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence

To confuse the issue of fault even further, some states follow “pure” comparative fault vs. “modified” comparative fault. This sets limitations on whether or not the plaintiff can collect if they are over a certain percentage of fault.

Pure comparative fault means that a person who was injured can collect a reduced compensation no matter their percentage of fault. Therefore, if the injured person is 90% at fault for the accident, they can still collect. In this example, the injured person will only get up to 10% of the total calculated damages.

Modified fault states allow the plaintiff to only collect if they fall under a certain threshold of fault. If the plaintiff is anymore than 50% at fault, they will not be able to collect. The state of Texas follows the modified comparative negligence clause. If you are found to be 49% at fault for an accident, you can still collect. If you are found to be 51% at fault or higher, you cannot.

If you have been injured and believe the fault rests on someone else, either completely or partially, contact an experienced Houston personal injury attorney today at 800.773.6770.