Imagine driving home on Wilson Road when you glance down to adjust your radio. In that split second, another driver runs a stop sign and crashes into your passenger side. While the other driver clearly made a serious error, you wonder if your momentary distraction made you partly responsible for causing the car accident.
At Skeeters, Bennett, Wilson & Humphrey, our Radcliff personal injury lawyers regularly meet with Central Kentucky car crash victims who worry they might be disqualified from receiving compensation because they were partially at fault. Many are surprised to learn that Kentucky's pure comparative negligence system may still allow them to recover damages, even if they share some blame for the collision.
How Kentucky's Pure Comparative Negligence Law Works
Kentucky follows a "pure comparative negligence" doctrine, established under Kentucky Revised Statute 411.182. This law allows injured parties to recover damages even if they bear some responsibility for the accident that caused their injuries.
Unlike states with modified comparative negligence rules that bar recovery if you're more than 50% at fault, Kentucky permits you to seek compensation regardless of your percentage of fault. However, your compensation is reduced by your share of responsibility
For example, if you're found to be 20% at fault for a Central Kentucky car accident with $100,000 in damages, your recovery would be reduced by 20%, allowing you to collect $80,000. Even if you’re assigned 90% of the car accident fault, you could still recover 10% of your damages ($10,000 in this case).
This system makes Kentucky more favorable to plaintiffs than many other states, but it also means that determining exact fault percentages is critically important in every personal injury case.
How Is Fault Determined in Kentucky Car Accidents?
When evaluating comparative fault in Radcliff car accident cases, several factors come into play.
Police Reports
Police reports provide an initial assessment of what happened at the scene. Officers document road conditions, witness statements, and may issue citations that can later influence fault determinations. The report might note if a driver was texting, speeding, or violating other traffic laws.
Witness Statements
Witness testimony offers perspectives from those who observed the car accident. Independent witnesses with no connection to either party often provide particularly valuable insights that help establish the sequence of events leading to the collision.
Physical Evidence
Physical evidence tells the story that words cannot. Skid marks showing a driver attempted to brake, the position of vehicles after impact, and damage patterns all help reconstruct what occurred. Debris patterns could prove a commercial truck driver entered a car accident victim’s lane.
Expert Testimony
Expert analysis from accident reconstruction specialists may be necessary in more complicated cases. These professionals use scientific principles to determine vehicle speeds, reaction times, and other technical aspects that contribute to establishing fault percentages.
Common Scenarios Where Partial Fault Arises
Many Central Kentucky accidents involve shared responsibility. Here are some typical situations where comparative fault becomes relevant.
Speeding and Right-of-Way Violations
In a common Radcliff intersection scenario, Driver A is exceeding the speed limit while Driver B fails to yield the right-of-way. Driver B pulls out from North Logsdon Parkway and collides with Driver A who is traveling too fast on West Lincoln Trail Boulevard.
In this case, Driver B might bear 70% fault for failing to yield, while Driver A could be assigned 30% responsibility for speeding, which reduced their ability to avoid the collision.
Distracted Driving Combined With Other Factors
Consider a rear-end collision on KY-313. The lead driver suddenly brakes without cause while the following driver is briefly looking at their phone. Both drivers share some blame—one for an unnecessary sudden stop and the other for not maintaining proper attention.
A court might assign 40% fault to the lead driver and 60% to the following driver who was distracted, adjusting compensation accordingly. This highly subjective ruling underscores the importance of having a skilled attorney in your corner to champion your best interests.
Lane Change Accidents
Lane change car accidents often involve multiple contributing factors. If you signal and begin changing lanes on US-31W, but another driver speeding in your blind spot collides with you, fault will likely be shared. You might be 35% at fault for not confirming the lane was clear, while the speeding driver could be 65% at fault for exceeding the speed limit.
Strategies to Protect Your Right to Fair Compensation
After a Central Kentucky collision where car accident fault might be shared, taking specific steps can help preserve your claim.
Document Everything
Take photos of all vehicles involved, capture the overall scene from multiple angles, and collect contact information from witnesses. These details can become crucial if the other party tries to shift more blame to you later.
Stick to the Facts
Be careful what you say after the crash. Apologizing or making statements like "I didn't see you" can be interpreted as admissions of fault. Stick to exchanging necessary information and reporting facts to police without speculating about cause.
Get Medical Care
Seek medical attention promptly even if injuries seem minor. Some conditions, like whiplash or internal injuries, might not be immediately apparent. Medical records create a timeline connecting your injuries to the accident and documenting their severity.
Seek Legal Guidance
Consult with a Kentucky personal injury lawyer before speaking with insurance adjusters. Insurance companies often try to maximize your percentage of fault to reduce their payout. Having legal representation helps ensure your interests are protected during these discussions.
How Insurance Companies Use Comparative Fault
Insurance adjusters in Kentucky are well-versed in using comparative negligence to their advantage. They may:
- Immediately suggest you share blame even when evidence doesn't support this conclusion
- Make quick settlement offers hoping you'll accept before fully understanding your claim's value
- Use recorded statements against you by asking leading questions designed to elicit responses suggesting higher levels of fault on your part
Our Radcliff personal injury lawyers have extensive experience countering these tactics and ensuring that any assignment of fault is fair and based on actual evidence rather than insurance company speculation.