Kentucky follows the doctrine of pure comparative fault. Under Kentucky law, an injured person may recover damages even if they were partially responsible for causing the collision. Any recovery is reduced by the person’s percentage of fault.
During more than thirty years handling Kentucky automobile accident claims, I’ve found that insurance companies frequently argue comparative fault whenever they believe it will reduce what they have to pay.
One of the most common questions people ask after a car accident is whether they can still recover compensation if they were partly at fault. In Kentucky, the answer is “yes!” Kentucky follows a legal rule known as pure comparative fault. This means that each person involved in an accident is responsible only for the percentage of damages that matches their share of the fault.
For example, suppose your damages total $100,000, but a jury determines you were 20% responsible for causing the accident. Your recovery would be reduced by 20%, allowing you to recover $80,000.
Unlike some states that prevent recovery once a driver reaches a certain percentage of fault, Kentucky’s comparative fault system generally allows recovery even if a person bears a significant share of the blame. The amount recovered is simply reduced by the assigned percentage of fault.
How Is Fault Determined?
Kentucky law defines “Right-of-way” as “the right of one (1) vehicle or pedestrian to proceed in a lawful manner in preference to another vehicle or pedestrian approaching under such circumstances of direction, speed, and proximity as to give rise to danger of collision unless one grants precedence to the other.” KRS 189.010(9).
In my legal experience in handling car wreck claims for over thirty years, the most important factor in determining fault for a car wreck or motorcycle accident is “Who had the right of way?” Additionally, on this same issue of who had the right of way, we have to be able to PROVE who had the right of way and not just what we think happened. For example, if you turn left in front of another driver, 95% of the time you did not have the right of way and had the legal duty to yield to the oncoming traffic. As a result, trying to prove that the approaching vehicle was speeding and this speeding caused the car wreck entirely is almost impossible to do.
The Desmond Difference in Practice, Real Kentucky Case
My client is turning left in front of another vehicle. However, he contends that he was turning left on a traffic light with a green arrow. If there was no green arrow, he did not have the right of way. To prove he had a green arrow, we have taken a statement from an independent witness who saw the car wreck, but he did not know. Again, the key issue is being able to PROVE who had the right of way.
To determine who had the right of way, I, Attorney Jim Desmond, and Insurance companies will review the police report. Further, when necessary, we might also review:
- Witness statements
- Photographs of the damaged vehicles
- Vehicle damage
- Traffic camera footage
- Statements from the drivers
Insurance adjusters may assign fault percentages early in the claims process, but those decisions are not necessarily final, and they may just be a way of trying to reduce the value of your claim. This is one reason it is so important to contact a personal injury lawyer immediately after a car accident, so they can do their best to make sure the at-fault insurance carrier accepts 100% liability for the car wreck immediately and throughout the injury claim.
Why Comparative Fault Matters
Insurance companies frequently argue that an injured person was partially responsible for an accident because reducing your percentage of recovery can lower the amount they pay. In simple terms, if you accept 20% fault for the car wreck, the value of your personal injury claim would be reduced by 20%, and the other driver would have a claim, whether it be for the damage to their car or for their injuries, for 20% of their damages.
On the other side, pure comparative fault means that if you were 90% at fault for a car wreck, you can still recover 10% of your damages. If your damages are large, that means you could still have a case wherein the value exceeds the policy limits of the at-fault driver.
Real, Prior Car Wreck Case handled by Desmond Law Office
A real-life example from my legal career was a case wherein a lady pulled out in front of another driver, so she was arguably at fault for the car wreck and had over $300,000 in medical bills from the car accident. The other driver had $100,000 in insurance coverage. I informed the insurance company I was only going to show that their driver was 30% at fault for the car wreck, and by doing so, they would have faced a judgment in excess of their policy limits. They agreed with my argument and tendered their policy limits to my client.
Jim Desmond’s Practical Advice
Let us investigate the car wreck to determine where fault lies.
Don’t make assumptions about who is at fault for the car wreck.
Driving with the right of way is the best way to avoid needing a personal injury lawyer.
Attorney James “Jim” Desmond
Jim Desmond is a Louisville car accident lawyer licensed in Kentucky and Indiana since 1993. He has represented victims of automobile, motorcycle, truck, and pedestrian collisions throughout Kentucky.
The Desmond Difference
Every accident case is unique. Insurance companies often evaluate claims based on limited information gathered shortly after a collision. Before accepting an insurance company’s decision about fault, injuries, or the value of your claim, it can be helpful to understand all of your legal options.
If you’ve been injured in a Kentucky car or motorcycle accident, Attorney Jim Desmond offers a free consultation to discuss your case. Call (502) 609-7657 or contact us online to learn more.