A jury finds that a California plaintiff was 80% at fault for an auto accident and the defendant was 20% at fault. Total damages are $100,000. Under California's negligence rule, how much may the plaintiff recover from the defendant?
Explanation
California follows PURE comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab Co. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by his or her own percentage of fault, but is not barred even if the plaintiff is more than 50% (or even 99%) at fault. An 80% at-fault plaintiff therefore recovers 20% of $100,000, or $20,000. States that use modified comparative negligence would bar this plaintiff, but California does not.
Law Reference: Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975) (pure comparative negligence)This topic, taught in full in the California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide. California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent Study Guide — 2026 Edition — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 531 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- To establish a prima facie case of negligence against a defendant, a plaintiff must prove four elements. Which of the following is NOT one of them?
- A plaintiff in California suffers $300,000 in economic damages (medical bills, lost wages) and $200,000 in non-economic damages (pain and suffering). Defendant A is 10% at fault; Defendant B (insolvent) is 90% at fault. Under Civil Code §1431.2, what may the plaintiff collect from Defendant A?
- A delivery driver, while making deliveries during work hours in a company van, negligently rear-ends another vehicle. The injured party sues the driver's employer. Under what doctrine may the employer be held liable for the driver's negligent act?
- Under the standard ISO Commercial General Liability (CGL) form CG 00 01, Coverage A pays sums the insured becomes legally obligated to pay as damages because of:
- A small business is sued because its president, in a public speech, falsely accused a competitor of fraud. Which Coverage of the standard CGL is most likely to respond to this defamation suit?
- An OCCURRENCE-based CGL policy with a one-year term ending December 31, 2024, is in force. Bodily injury occurs on October 1, 2024, but the claim is not filed against the insured until April 2027. Which policy responds?
Last reviewed: · editorial process