In Texas, comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that is used to determine the amount of damages that a plaintiff may recover in a personal injury lawsuit. Under this doctrine, the amount of damages that a plaintiff may recover is reduced by the percentage of fault that is attributed to the plaintiff for the accident.
For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 50% at fault for an accident, and the total damages are $100,000, the plaintiff would only be able to recover $50,000 in damages.
There are two main types of comparative negligence: pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence.
Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff may recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault for the accident. The amount of damages recoverable is simply reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff.
Under modified comparative negligence, a plaintiff cannot recover any damages if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident.
In determining the percentage of fault for an accident, courts will consider the actions of all parties involved in the accident. This may include the actions of the plaintiff, the defendant, and any third parties who may have contributed to the accident.
It is important to note that comparative negligence is only used in personal injury cases, and not in cases involving property damage. In cases involving property damage, the traditional legal doctrine of “fault” is used to determine liability.
Overall, comparative negligence is an important doctrine in Texas law that helps to fairly distribute damages in personal injury cases based on the fault of all parties involved in the accident.
