Comparative fault reshapes wrongful death strategy from the first call. Responsibility is split when evidence shows more than one party contributed to the fatal crash. This split can reduce recovery even when liability is strong. Percentages, rules, and proof discipline matters.
Families need a clear plan that preserves facts, allocates fault fairly, and protects leverage in negotiations and trial. This overview explains why shared blame changes the path, and how to respond with steps that protect value.
Map the rules before you argue
Start with the statute; identify whether the state uses pure comparative, a 50% or 51% bar, or contributory negligence. Take note of caps, joint and several rules, and special defenses. The venue can change outcomes, so select the forum that fits the facts and timeline.
Turn the law into simple checkpoints for the team. Write a one-page memo with the fault thresholds, deadlines, and proof burdens. Be sure to confirm them early, then revisit as evidence develops and as pleadings or motions shift the playing field.
⦁ Anchor your percentages in evidence
Jurors trust numbers backed by records. Pull EDR data, speed estimates, brake traces, phone logs, and traffic cams. Capture sight lines with scaled photos, and log weather, lighting, and lane markings.
In addition, be sure to preserve vehicle and roadway inspections. Build a simple table that shows how each fact moves fault a few points, and update as new files arrive. For families planning next steps, review this wrongful death case guidance to learn more.
Rebuild the conduct for both sides
Comparative fault puts the decedent’s actions under the microscope. Be sure to rebuild pre-impact conduct with neutral language. Document the decedent’s position, speed, signals, restraints, medical conditions, training, and any prior complaints. Use diagrams, scaled photos, and measured sight distances. Anchor each detail to a document or timestamp.
Next, show the other driver’s choices against the same yardstick: duties at that intersection, required lookouts, safe following space, lane discipline, and reaction time windows. Explain traffic flow and visibility with simple visuals. Place both stories on one timeline so jurors can see where caution failed and why. Fair reconstruction builds credibility, and credibility protects damages.
Value damages against many scenarios
Model outcomes against a range of fault splits. Zero, 10, 25, 40, and 50% are common checkpoints. Price medical care, funeral costs, earnings, services, and non-economic loss at each rung. Tie every number to a document, like paystubs, tax returns, medical care invoices, and expert summaries. Present a version that a mediator can read in minutes, and present a deeper version for trial. When everyone sees the swing, the offers move faster.
Negotiate with sequence and proof
Start with liability exhibits that teach fault fast, then show a clear damages ladder at the most likely split. Keep trial visuals ready in reserve, and make sure to consider structured payouts to bridge gaps. Additionally, put every concession in writing. Track who agreed to what and when. If the defense leans on unfair blame, answer with citations, photos, and timelines.
Endnote
Comparative fault is a margins game, and a few points can change everything. Map the law, prove the conduct, and price the swings. Be sure to keep your narrative fair and supported. Use timelines, diagrams, and brief memos that a layperson can grasp.
