Car accidents can be complicated, and determining who is at fault often becomes contentious. In Illinois, one important legal concept that plays a significant role in personal injury cases is comparative negligence. This principle affects the amount of damages a victim can recover, especially when fault is shared between multiple parties.
In this article, we’ll explore what comparative negligence means, how it works in Illinois, and how it impacts auto accident cases. We’ll also provide real-life examples of how this rule has been applied in Illinois courts. By the end, you’ll have a clear understanding of comparative negligence law and its applicability to car accidents and other tort cases in the state.
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to assign fault when multiple parties are involved in an accident. Unlike a pure comparative negligence rule, where a claimant can recover damages regardless of their degree of fault, Illinois follows a modified comparative negligence law. This system recognizes that more than one person can contribute to an accident, and the fault is distributed accordingly.
There are two types of comparative negligence systems:
Illinois uses the 51% rule, meaning as long as you are less than 51% at fault, you can recover compensation for your injuries. However, your compensation will be reduced by your amount of negligence.
Illinois law operates under the 51% rule of modified comparative negligence. This means that if you are 50% or less at fault for the accident, you are eligible to recover compensation, but the amount will be reduced by your degree of fault. If you are found to be 51% or more at fault, you are barred from recovering any damages.
For example, if you are awarded $100,000 in damages but are found to be 30% at fault, your compensation will be reduced by 30%, meaning you would receive $70,000. If you were 51% at fault, you would not be eligible to receive any compensation at all.
This system allows courts to account for shared fault in car accident cases, ensuring that plaintiffs who contributed to their injuries are still compensated, but only in proportion to their level of responsibility.
In Illinois, determining fault in a car accident relies on evidence, witness testimony, and sometimes expert opinions. The process typically involves:
To better understand how comparative negligence works in Illinois, let’s explore three real-life examples of cases where comparative negligence impacted the outcome:
In 2021, a driver was rear-ended while stopped at a red light in downtown Chicago. The victim sustained injuries and sued the other driver for damages. However, during the trial, it was revealed that the plaintiff’s brake lights were malfunctioning at the time of the accident, making it difficult for the driver behind them to stop in time.
The court found that while the rear driver was primarily at fault for not maintaining a safe following distance, the plaintiff was 20% responsible due to the defective brake lights. As a result, the plaintiff’s award of $50,000 was reduced by 20%, leaving them with $40,000.
Key Takeaway: Even though the plaintiff was rear-ended (typically the fault of the rear driver), their own negligence in failing to maintain their vehicle contributed to the accident, reducing their compensation.
In a case from Oak Park, a pedestrian sued a driver after being hit while crossing the street. The pedestrian was walking in a crosswalk, but they were looking at their phone and did not notice that the traffic signal had changed. The driver was speeding and failed to stop in time, hitting the pedestrian.
Both parties were found to be at fault. The court determined that the driver was 60% responsible for the accident due to speeding, while the pedestrian was 40% responsible for not paying attention to the traffic signals. The pedestrian was awarded $100,000 in damages, but since they were 40% at fault, they received $60,000.
Key Takeaway: In this case, both the pedestrian and the driver contributed to the accident. The pedestrian’s failure to pay attention while crossing the street reduced their compensation, even though they were ultimately awarded damages.
A multi-car accident occurred on Interstate 90, just outside of Schaumburg, involving three vehicles. Vehicle 1 rear-ended Vehicle 2, causing Vehicle 2 to swerve and hit Vehicle 3. The driver of Vehicle 3 sued both of the other drivers for damages, claiming that both were responsible for the accident.
After reviewing the evidence, the court assigned 70% of the blame to the driver of Vehicle 1, who had caused the initial collision, and 30% to the driver of Vehicle 2, who failed to maintain control of their car after being rear-ended. The driver of Vehicle 3 was awarded $150,000 in damages, which was then split between the two other drivers according to their percentage of fault.
Key Takeaway: In multi-vehicle accidents, fault can be shared between multiple drivers. Vehicle 3’s compensation was divided based on the court’s determination of each party’s contribution to the crash.
Comparative negligence has significant legal implications for plaintiffs in Illinois. Understanding how it works can help accident victims pursue compensation while managing expectations about the amount they can recover. Here are some key legal aspects to keep in mind:
To recover compensation in a car accident case, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the other party was negligent. In Illinois, negligence is defined as the failure to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances. Evidence such as police reports, eyewitness testimony, and expert opinions are essential to establishing negligence.
As discussed, Illinois follows the 51% rule. If you are found to be 51% or more at fault for the accident, you are barred from recovering any damages. If you are 50% or less at fault, your compensation will be reduced by your percentage of fault.
Insurance companies often use comparative negligence as a strategy to minimize their liability. They may argue that you are more at fault than you truly are to reduce the payout or avoid paying altogether. Having an experienced personal injury attorney who understands comparative negligence in Illinois can help counter these tactics and ensure you receive the compensation you deserve.
In Illinois, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including car accidents, is two years from the date of the accident. It’s essential to file your claim within this timeframe, as failing to do so will likely result in your case being dismissed, even if you have a valid claim.
If you’ve been involved in a car accident in Illinois, it’s important to take specific steps to protect your rights, particularly if comparative negligence may come into play:
Comparative Negligence: Working With Palermo Law Group
At Palermo Law Group, we understand the challenges that come with navigating Illinois’s comparative negligence laws after a car accident. Under the state’s modified comparative negligence rule, you can still recover compensation for your injuries as long as your degree of fault does not exceed 50%. However, any compensation you receive will be reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to you, making it critical to approach your case strategically.
Our experienced personal injury lawyers are here to guide you through the complexities of Illinois’s legal system. From investigating the details of your car accident to building a strong case that minimizes your assigned degree of fault, we work tirelessly to ensure you receive fair compensation. Whether negotiating with insurance companies or representing you in court, Palermo Law Group is committed to protecting your rights and maximizing your recovery.
Understanding comparative negligence is vital, but you don’t have to navigate it alone. Let Palermo Law Group provide the legal expertise you need to succeed. Contact us today for a consultation and take the first step toward achieving justice in your car accident case.
For a free consultation with Palermo Law Group, contact our law firm by calling (630) 684-2332 or visit our website at https://www.palermolawgroup.com/.
Comparative negligence and comparative fault are often used interchangeably, but they have nuanced differences. Comparative negligence refers specifically to the legal doctrine used to allocate fault and reduce damages based on each party's degree of responsibility in an accident. Comparative fault, on the other hand, is a broader term that encompasses various systems for apportioning liability, including pure and modified comparative negligence rules.
Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are partially at fault for an accident, as long as their share of fault does not exceed a certain percentage (e.g., 50% in Illinois). In contrast, the contributory negligence rule, used in states like Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and Virginia, bars plaintiffs from recovering any damages if they are even 1% at fault.
Strict liability is a legal concept where a party is held liable for damages regardless of fault or negligence. This is often applied in cases involving defective products, abnormally dangerous activities, or animal attacks. In contrast, negligence requires proving that a party failed to exercise reasonable care, as in most motor vehicle accidents.
Yes, comparative negligence can apply in wrongful death cases, depending on the state’s laws. If the deceased person is found partially at fault for the accident that caused their death, the damages awarded to their family may be reduced by the deceased’s percentage of fault.
In malpractice cases, such as medical or legal malpractice, comparative negligence may come into play if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their injury. For example, failing to follow a doctor’s instructions might reduce the amount of damages awarded in a medical malpractice claim.
Insurance companies often use comparative negligence to minimize their liability. For instance, they may argue that the injured party bears a higher percentage of fault to reduce the payout. Working with an experienced attorney can help counteract these tactics and ensure a fair settlement in insurance claims related to motor vehicle accidents.
In motor vehicle accidents, comparative negligence determines the share of liability among all parties involved. For instance, if one driver ran a red light while the other was speeding, both could be assigned a percentage of fault, which would impact their ability to recover damages.
Comparative negligence is generally not applicable in strict liability cases, as liability is assigned without regard to fault. However, it may influence the outcome if negligence on the part of the plaintiff is relevant to the case, such as misuse of a product in a product liability claim.
Working with an experienced attorney is essential to navigating a comparative negligence claim. Whether you’re dealing with insurance claims, wrongful death, or malpractice, an attorney can help gather evidence, counter opposing arguments, and maximize your recovery.