GET A FREE CONSULTATION
310-750-4149
By David Gammill, Attorney
Legally reviewed: October 25, 2026 | Updated: October 25, 2026
Short answer: Yes. California follows pure comparative fault. If you were partly at fault for an accident, you can still recover damages from the others who caused it. Your award is reduced by your own percentage of fault, and there is no 50% cutoff. If you are found 20% at fault, you recover 80% of your proven damages.
Key points
Yes. In California, being partly at fault reduces your recovery; it does not bar it. This is true even if you were more at fault than the person you are suing.
Before 1975, any fault by the injured person barred recovery. The California Supreme Court changed that in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, a case that began with a left turn at Alvarado and Third Streets in Los Angeles. The Court held that “in all actions for negligence resulting in injury to person or property, the contributory negligence of the person injured… shall not bar recovery, but the damages awarded shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering.”
The Court chose the “pure” form on purpose, rejecting the “50 percent” system used in many states, where a plaintiff at 50% fault or more recovers nothing.
Civil Code § 1714(a) makes people responsible for injuries caused by their want of ordinary care, “except so far as” the injured person brought the injury on themselves. Li held that § 1714 does not stop courts from adopting comparative fault. It did not hold that § 1714 created the rule, which is case law.
Your recovery equals your total proven damages multiplied by the share of fault that is not yours. The formula is: total damages × (100% − your fault %).
The jury finds your total damages separately and is told not to consider anyone’s percentage of fault when doing so. The judge then does the math. CACI No. 405 tells jurors, “I will calculate the actual reduction” (CACI Nos. 405 and 406).
Illustrative only. These figures are hypothetical, not a prediction of any result.
| Total proven damages | Your share of fault | Your recovery |
|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 0% | $100,000 |
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 |
| $100,000 | 25% | $75,000 |
| $100,000 | 50% | $50,000 |
| $100,000 | 90% | $10,000 |
Only a judge or jury makes a binding decision about fault. An insurance adjuster’s percentage is a negotiating position, not a finding.
Under CACI No. 405, a defendant claiming you were at fault “must prove both” of these:
Under CACI No. 406, when more than one person’s fault was a substantial factor, the jury assigns “percentages of responsibility to each person listed on the verdict form,” and “the percentages must total 100 percent.” A judge does the same in a bench trial; a mediator helps negotiate but decides nothing.
Each defendant can be made to pay all of your economic damages, but only its own percentage of your non-economic damages. This is the rule of Proposition 51, adopted by voters on June 3, 1986, and codified at Civil Code § 1431.2.
Section 1431.2(a) says each defendant’s liability for non-economic damages “shall be several only and shall not be joint.” The statute defines the two kinds of damages:
Economic damages: “objectively verifiable monetary losses,” such as medical expenses, lost earnings, burial costs, and repair costs.
Non-economic damages: “subjective, non-monetary losses,” such as pain, suffering, emotional distress, and loss of companionship.
Three rules shape how Proposition 51 applies:
Fault is measured against everyone who caused the harm. In DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, the Supreme Court held that a defendant’s non-economic share “cannot exceed his or her proportionate share of fault as compared with all fault responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries, not merely that of ‘defendant[s]’ present in the lawsuit.” There, a 15-year-old worker was 15% at fault, his employer (immune from suit) 45%, and the manufacturer 40%; the manufacturer did not owe the employer’s share of non-economic damages. The CACI 406 notes add that “nonparties” can include defendants who settled before trial.
Economic damages stay joint. DaFonte explains that Proposition 51 “retains the joint liability of all tortfeasors… with respect to all objectively provable expenses and monetary losses.”
Intentional wrongdoers get no reduction. In B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1, the Court held that § 1431.2 “does not authorize a reduction in the liability of intentional tortfeasors for noneconomic damages based on the extent to which the negligence of other actors… contributed to the injuries.”
ILLUSTRATIVE HYPOTHETICAL. The facts and figures below are made up to show the math. They are not a prediction of any case result.
In this example, the injured person collects $80,000 of $100,000 in damages. If one at-fault driver has no insurance or assets, the collectible amount drops to $68,000.
Hypothetical facts: $100,000 in total damages ($40,000 economic, $60,000 non-economic). The jury assigns fault: injured person 20%, Driver A 60%, Driver B 20%.
| Damages | Total after your 20% reduction | Driver A pays | Driver B pays | Joint or several? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Economic ($40,000) | $32,000 | Up to all $32,000 | Up to all $32,000 | Joint and several: either driver can be made to pay the full $32,000 |
| Non-economic ($60,000) | $48,000 | $36,000 (60% × $60,000) | $12,000 (20% × $60,000) | Several only: each pays only its own share |
| Total | $80,000 |
If Driver B has no insurance or assets: you can still collect the full $32,000 in economic damages from Driver A, plus A’s $36,000 non-economic share, for $68,000. B’s $12,000 non-economic share goes uncollected, because Proposition 51 does not let you shift it to A.
Insurers often assign you a share of fault early, because every point lowers what they pay. That number is an opening position, and evidence can move it.
Common tactics include a quick “50/50” assessment, an early recorded statement, and review of social media posts. Evidence that answers them includes:
Yes. The same rule applies to people walking, biking, or riding: their share of fault reduces the recovery but does not erase it, and the driver’s violations count against the driver.
Pedestrians: crossing outside a crosswalk can add to a pedestrian’s share of fault, but drivers still owe due care. See our guide to pedestrian right-of-way rules.
Bicyclists: under Vehicle Code § 21760, the Three Feet for Safety Act, a driver passing a bicycle in the same direction may not do so “at a distance of less than three feet.”
Motorcyclists: Vehicle Code § 21658.1 defines lane splitting and allows the CHP to develop safety guidelines. The section does not prohibit lane splitting. Whether a rider did it carelessly is a fault question decided on the evidence.
Speed: a driver can be at fault for going too fast for conditions even under the posted limit. See California’s basic speed law.
For help with a specific crash, see our pedestrian accident lawyer, bicycle accident lawyer, and motorcycle accident lawyer pages.
Fault is decided case by case, but the California Highway Patrol’s statewide crash data shows how often investigating officers assign fault to each kind of road user, and which factors they cite. The figures below are from the CHP’s 2020 California Quick Crash Facts, the most recent edition the CHP has published (data year 2020; read October 25, 2026).
Motorcyclists. Of the 589 motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes in 2020, officers found the rider at fault in 386, or 65.5 percent. When no other party was involved, the rider was at fault 95.7 percent of the time. Those numbers describe the officer’s finding at the scene, not the outcome of any claim, and a rider found partly at fault still recovers under the pure comparative fault rule.
Speed. Speed was the primary crash factor in 27.4 percent of all fatal and injury crashes in 2020. That is why the basic speed law matters even when nobody was over the posted limit: going too fast for conditions is negligence, and it can be charged to either driver.
Hit-and-run. Hit-and-run was indicated in 12.6 percent of fatal and injury crashes. When the other driver leaves, fault is proven from physical evidence, video and witnesses, and the claim often runs through your own uninsured motorist coverage. See our hit-and-run law guide.
Young drivers. Drivers under 30 were 20.4 percent of licensed drivers but 36.9 percent of all drivers found at fault in fatal and injury crashes.
Pedestrians and bicyclists. In 2020, 1,043 pedestrians and 153 bicyclists were killed on California roads. Children under 15 were 7 percent of pedestrian victims and 8.1 percent of bicycle victims killed or injured. The CHP does not publish a statewide at-fault rate for pedestrians or bicyclists, so no such figure appears here. Fault in those crashes is decided on the evidence in each case.
These statistics come from officer reports. An officer’s fault finding is not binding on a judge or jury, and in most cases the report itself cannot be used as evidence at trial, as explained in the FAQ below.
Source: California Highway Patrol, 2020 California Quick Crash Facts, https://www.chp.ca.gov/siteassets/files/3-california-quick-crash-facts-2020.pdf (data year 2020; read October 25, 2026).
No. Violating a safety statute creates a presumption of negligence, and the violator can rebut it. The presumption applies to whoever broke the law, including the injured person.
Under Evidence Code § 669, a failure to use due care is presumed if four things are shown: (1) a person violated a statute, ordinance, or regulation; (2) the violation proximately caused injury; (3) the injury was the kind the law was designed to prevent; and (4) the injured person was in the class it protects.
The presumption can be rebutted with proof that the violator “did what might reasonably be expected of a person of ordinary prudence, acting under similar circumstances, who desired to comply with the law.” CACI No. 418 applies the presumption to either a plaintiff or a defendant, and it still requires that the violation was a substantial factor in causing the harm.
Not wearing a seat belt does not bar your claim. It can reduce recovery only for injuries a belt would have prevented or lessened, and the defendant must prove that.
Vehicle Code § 27315(i) provides that in a civil action a seat belt violation “does not establish negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se for comparative fault purposes, but negligence may be proven as a fact.” That language appears in subdivision (i) of both the version in effect through 2026 and the version operative January 1, 2027 (AB 435, Stats. 2025, ch. 434).
Under CACI No. 712, the defendant must prove all four of the following:
Cases quoted in the CACI 712 notes say expert testimony may be needed to separate belt-preventable injuries from those that would have happened anyway.
Why insurers raise the issue: NHTSA reports that lap/shoulder belts reduce the risk of fatal injury to front-seat passenger-car occupants by 45% and the risk of moderate-to-critical injury by 50%. Observed belt use was 91.3% nationally in 2025 and 96.2% in the Western states, the NHTSA region that includes California (NHTSA, Seat Belt Use in 2025, DOT HS 813 799).
Usually not. Only primary assumption of risk is a complete bar, and it mostly applies to the inherent risks of sports and recreation. Secondary assumption of risk is treated as ordinary comparative fault.
In Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296, the Supreme Court explained the difference. In primary assumption of risk cases, the defendant owes no duty to protect against a risk that is part of the activity itself. A co-participant in an active sport is liable only for intentionally injuring another player or for conduct “so reckless as to be totally outside the range of the ordinary activity involved in the sport” (CACI No. 470). In secondary assumption of risk cases, the defendant breached a duty and the plaintiff knowingly faced the resulting risk. Those cases are “merged into the comparative fault scheme.”
As Knight noted, a person who chooses to drive does not “impliedly consent” to being injured by another driver’s negligence.
| Defense raised | Complete bar? | How it affects recovery |
|---|---|---|
| Your own carelessness | No | Reduces damages by your percentage (CACI 405) |
| Traffic-law violation by you | No | Rebuttable presumption; still must be a substantial factor (Evid. Code § 669) |
| No seat belt | No | Reduces only belt-preventable injuries; 4 elements (CACI 712) |
| Secondary assumption of risk | No | Treated as comparative fault (Knight) |
| Primary assumption of risk | Yes, if it applies | No duty for inherent sports and recreation risks (Knight; CACI 470) |
The percentage an insurer assigns you is built from the record that exists in the first days after a crash. Most of what protects you is simple and time-sensitive.
Get the report started and get the other driver’s information. Call the police, give a factual account, and exchange license, registration and insurance details. Do not argue fault at the scene.
Photograph everything before the cars move, if you safely can. Vehicle positions, damage to both cars, the road, the signal or sign, skid marks, debris, and the view each driver had of the other.
Find the witnesses yourself. Officers do not always take every name. Ask anyone who stopped for a phone number.
Ask about cameras. Nearby businesses, buses, doorbell cameras and traffic cameras often record the intersection, and many systems overwrite within days.
Get checked by a doctor. Gaps in treatment are used to argue that your injuries came from something else, which is a causation argument that works like a fault argument.
Be careful with recorded statements and social media. You must cooperate with your own insurer under your policy, but you are not required to give the other driver’s insurer a recorded statement, and anything you post about the crash or your activities can be used to raise your percentage.
Keep the car. If the vehicle is totaled, the event data recorder and the damage pattern are evidence; ask that it be preserved before it is salvaged.
The same way. If the person who died was partly at fault, the family’s recovery is reduced by that person’s percentage under CACI No. 407, and Proposition 51 splits non-economic damages among the defendants by their percentages. If an heir’s own negligence also contributed to the death, that heir’s recovery is reduced by his or her own share as well. The deadlines are separate from the fault question; see our wrongful death filing deadline guide.
Several other rules can matter as much as your percentage:
Uninsured drivers: under Civil Code § 3333.4, an uninsured vehicle owner, a driver who cannot show financial responsibility, or a driver convicted of DUI for the crash generally cannot recover non-economic damages in a motor vehicle case.
Other case types: comparative fault also applies in claims involving strict liability for dog bites, dangerous public property claims, and slip-and-fall cases (see our slip and fall attorney page). If the other driver fled, see our hit-and-run law guide.
Yes. Li adopted the pure form so that recovery continues “in spite of the fact that the plaintiff is equally at fault as or more at fault than the defendant.” Your award is reduced by your share.
Under Evidence Code § 1160, expressions of sympathy after an accident are not admissible to prove liability, but “a statement of fault” is not protected. Stick to facts and safety.
Yes. The family’s recovery is reduced by the decedent’s share of fault (CACI No. 407); see the wrongful death section above.
No. The officer’s opinion about fault is not binding, and the written report usually does not go to the jury. Vehicle Code § 20013 provides that “[n]o such accident report shall be used as evidence in any trial, civil or criminal, arising out of an accident.” The officer can testify to what he or she personally saw at the scene, and statements inside the report may come in through their own hearsay rules, but the fault conclusion is a starting point for the adjuster, not a verdict. Our guide to hearsay in expert testimony covers how collision reports are handled at trial.
Fault is proven with evidence, not by who speaks first. Vehicle damage, the final rest positions, skid or yaw marks, the timing of traffic signals, event data recorder downloads, nearby business and doorbell cameras, and 911 recordings all exist whether or not a bystander stopped. Much of it is overwritten within days, so preserve it early. If the only evidence is two conflicting accounts, the jury decides whose is more believable, and your share of fault is still only a reduction, not a bar.
Yes. An adjuster’s percentage is an opening position. It can move during the claim as evidence comes in, and at trial the jury makes its own finding under CACI Nos. 405 and 406 with no obligation to follow the insurer’s number or the officer’s.
For economic damages, no: the remaining defendants stay jointly liable for the economic loss, reduced by the amount the settling defendant paid (Code Civ. Proc. § 877). For non-economic damages, each defendant owes only its own percentage, and a settling defendant’s share is not shifted to the others. The jury can assign a percentage to a settled defendant as a nonparty when it apportions fault, as the CACI 406 notes explain.
No. Fault affects how much you recover, not when you must file. Most California injury suits have a two-year statute of limitations (CCP § 335.1), and claims against public entities have much shorter deadlines.
Yes, as of the review date above. Pure comparative fault has been California law since Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975). Proposition 51 (Civ. Code § 1431.2) has applied since June 3, 1986. Jury instructions are from the 2026 CACI edition, rechecked yearly. A § 27315 amendment effective January 1, 2027 redefines “properly restrained” but keeps the civil-case rule in subdivision (i).
Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804
Civ. Code § 1714; Civ. Code § 1431.2 (Prop 51); Civ. Code § 3333.4
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593; B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020) 10 Cal.5th 1; Knight v. Jewett (1992) 3 Cal.4th 296
Evid. Code § 669; Evid. Code § 1160
Veh. Code § 27315 and AB 435 (Stats. 2025, ch. 434); § 21760; § 21658.1; § 22350
CACI (2026) Nos. 405, 406, 407, 418, 470, 712
Veh. Code § 20013; Code Civ. Proc. § 877
NHTSA, Seat Belt Use in 2025, DOT HS 813 799 (data year 2025; read October 25, 2026); NHTSA, Seat Belts (belt effectiveness; read October 23, 2026); CHP, 2020 California Quick Crash Facts (data year 2020; read October 25, 2026)
More topics: California injury laws explained.
David Gammill is a California trial lawyer who served seven years as a Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney and has tried more than 100 cases to verdict. He represents injured people in the South Bay and across Los Angeles County. State Bar of California No. 258286 (State Bar profile).
If an insurer says you were partly to blame, Gammill Law offers a free case review. Call 310-750-4149, or start with our Torrance car accident attorney or Los Angeles car accident lawyer pages. Fees are contingent under a written agreement; learn how contingency fees work.
Disclaimer: This page provides general legal information, not legal advice. Reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. The dollar examples are illustrative hypotheticals, not predictions. Every case depends on its own facts, and no outcome is guaranteed. Talk with a licensed California attorney about your situation.