This blog was posted by Shaw-Cowart Personal Injury Attorneys in Austin, representing clients for car accident injuries, truck / 18-wheeler accidents, motorcycle accident injuries, work-related accidents, wrongful death claims and much more in Austin and the surrounding areas

Texas Comparative Fault Rules in Car Accident Cases

Texas comparative fault rules determine how shared responsibility affects car accident compensation. When multiple parties contribute to an accident, Texas law apportions fault among them and adjusts damages accordingly. Understanding Texas comparative fault rules helps accident victims know what to expect when the other side claims they share blame. Even if you bear some responsibility for an accident, you may still recover significant compensation under Texas comparative fault rules.

Find more information about our car accident lawyer in Austin here

Texas comparative fault rules follow a modified comparative negligence system. This means accident victims can recover damages as long as they were not primarily at fault. If a jury finds you 50% or less at fault, you can recover compensation reduced by your fault percentage. If you bear more than 50% responsibility, you recover nothing. Texas comparative fault rules create a critical threshold that significantly impacts case outcomes.

Check out this Austin car accident injury webpage

According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001, the trier of fact determines each party’s percentage of responsibility. The court then reduces the claimant’s recovery by their responsibility percentage. This statutory framework governs how Texas comparative fault rules apply in car accident cases.

How Comparative Fault Calculations Work

Comparative fault calculations adjust damage awards based on each party’s responsibility. Understanding these calculations helps victims evaluate their claims realistically.

A jury or judge determines each party’s fault percentage based on evidence presented at trial. Both sides present arguments about what caused the accident and who bears responsibility. The fact finder weighs this evidence and assigns percentages that must total 100%.

Damage awards get reduced by the victim’s fault percentage. If you suffer $100,000 in damages but bear 20% fault, your recovery reduces to $80,000. If you bear 40% fault, you recover $60,000. The reduction scales proportionally with your assigned responsibility.

The 51% bar prevents recovery when victims bear the majority fault. If the fact finder assigns you 51% or more responsibility, you recover nothing regardless of your total damages. This threshold makes fault allocation critically important in contested cases.

Common Comparative Fault Arguments

Insurance companies and defense attorneys routinely argue that accident victims share fault to reduce their exposure. Several common arguments appear in car accident cases.

Speeding by the victim allegedly contributed to the accident or increased injury severity. Even if the other driver caused the collision, your speed may be raised to reduce your recovery. Evidence about speed limits and actual speeds becomes important.

Failure to wear a seatbelt may reduce recovery for injuries that would have been less severe with proper restraint. Texas does not have a specific seatbelt defense statute, but defendants may argue failure to mitigate damages.

Distracted driving by the victim is alleged when defendants claim you were not paying attention. Cell phone records and witness testimony about your behavior before the crash become relevant.

Failure to avoid the accident is argued when defendants claim you had the opportunity to take evasive action. They may argue you failed to brake, swerve, or otherwise avoid the collision.

Improper lane position or failure to signal allegedly contributed to the accident circumstances. Any traffic violation by the victim may be raised to allocate fault.

Proving the Other Driver’s Fault

Minimizing your fault allocation requires maximizing evidence of the other driver’s responsibility. Strong evidence of their negligence shifts the percentage in your favor.

Police reports documenting the other driver’s violations support your case. Citations issued at the scene create strong evidence of fault. Officer observations about the accident carry significant weight.

Witness testimony from independent observers establishes what happened. Witnesses who saw the other driver’s behavior before impact provide valuable evidence. Passengers in either vehicle may also testify.

Physical evidence at the scene indicates how the accident occurred. Skid marks, debris patterns, point of impact, and final vehicle positions all tell part of the story. Photographs preserve this evidence.

Electronic evidence from vehicle data recorders captures speed, braking, and other information. Cell phone records may prove the other driver was distracted. Surveillance video sometimes captures accidents.

Expert witnesses reconstruct accidents and explain technical evidence to juries. Accident reconstruction specialists analyze evidence to determine fault. Their testimony can be powerful in disputed cases.

Strategies When Facing Comparative Fault Arguments

Effective strategies counter attempts to shift blame onto accident victims. Experienced attorneys know how to respond to comparative fault arguments.

Acknowledge minor faults when appropriate rather than appearing unreasonable. Juries respect parties who accept appropriate responsibility. Arguing you bear zero fault when evidence suggests otherwise can backfire.

Emphasize the other driver’s greater negligence to keep focus on their conduct. Even if you bear some responsibility, highlighting their more serious violations shifts the percentage in your favor.

Challenge speculative fault arguments that lack evidentiary support. Defendants sometimes make fault arguments based on assumptions rather than evidence. Object to unsupported claims.

Present expert testimony explaining why the alleged contributing factors did not actually cause the accident. Experts can rebut defense theories with scientific analysis.

Get Help Navigating Comparative Fault Issues

The car accident attorneys at Shaw Cowart understand how to handle comparative fault arguments and maximize client recovery. We investigate thoroughly, build strong cases proving the other driver’s fault, and counter attempts to unfairly shift blame. If you were injured in an accident where fault is disputed, contact Shaw Cowart today for a free consultation.