Judge Teresa Beaudet, Shared Blame, & Comparative Negligence in California Explained

Let’s say a crash happens at a busy Los Angeles intersection. One driver speeds through a yellow light. Another driver turns left. Then comes the hard question: Who is at fault?

What if both drivers made mistakes?

That is where comparative negligence in California becomes important. California does not use an all-or-nothing rule. A person can share some fault and still seek damages. But the person’s share of fault can reduce the amount recovered.

That sounds simple. But real accidents are not that simple.

Was the driver speeding? Was the other driver paying attention? Did someone have a clear view of the road? Was there a broken traffic signal? What does the video show?

Those questions can change the answer.

California follows pure comparative negligence. The California Supreme Court adopted this rule in Li v. Yellow Cab Co. in 1975. The court moved away from the old contributory negligence rule. Under that older rule, even a small amount of fault could block a person from recovering anything. 

California took a different path.

So, what does pure comparative fault mean?

Think about this: Maria drives through an intersection. Another driver runs a red light and hits her. Maria suffered $100,000 in damages.

But suppose the evidence also shows that Maria drove 10% over the speed limit.

A jury could decide that the other driver caused most of the crash, while Maria also played a small part.

If Maria gets 10% of the fault, her $100,000 in damages could be reduced by 10%.

She could still recover.

That is the heart of California’s rule.

This also explains comparative negligence vs contributory negligence in simple terms:

• Contributory negligence: Any fault could block recovery.
• Comparative negligence: Your recovery can shrink based on your share of fault.
• Pure comparative negligence: California can reduce your damages even when you carry a large share of the blame.

So, what if someone is 40% at fault?

The person may still recover the remaining 60% if the other legal parts of the claim are proven.

What if someone is 80% at fault?

The same basic rule can apply. California’s system does not create a 50% fault cutoff.

But there is another question: Who decides the percentage?

That depends on the case, the evidence, and whether the parties reach an agreement or the issue goes to trial.

A Los Angeles Superior Court ruling by Judge Teresa A. Beaudet also shows why courts must look closely at the facts when parties raise comparative fault in a vehicle case. The point is simple: saying, “The other person caused it,” does not end the discussion when the evidence raises questions about shared responsibility.

Here is the math in its simplest form.

Think of a person who has $100,000 in damages.

These numbers are examples, not promises about what a case is worth.

Now think of an insurance company that says, “You were 40% at fault.”

Does that make the person 40% at fault?

Not by itself.

An insurance company can make an argument. The injured person can disagree. The parties may look at photos, traffic-camera footage, witness statements, police reports, medical records, and other evidence.

What if a video shows something different?

Then the video may change the discussion.

What if two witnesses tell different stories?

Then the court may need to decide which evidence it finds more convincing.

This is why a fault percentage should never be treated like a magic number. The facts come first.

California law also has special rules when more than one defendant shares responsibility. Civil Code section 1431.2 says each defendant generally has separate responsibility for non-economic damages in certain comparative-fault cases. That can matter when several people or businesses appear in the same lawsuit. 

Even if you are partially at fault for a car accident in California, it does not automatically end your personal injury claim.

Let’s say two cars meet at an intersection.

Driver A speeds through the intersection.

Driver B turns without checking carefully.

Both drivers may have made mistakes.

But how much did each mistake matter?

That is the real question.

This is also why California’s shared-fault car accident laws can get complicated. The court may need to look at the speed of each car, traffic signs, road conditions, visibility, lane positions, witness accounts, and other facts.

A recent California Supreme Court case gives us a useful example.

In Downey v. City of Riverside, decided in 2024, the court looked at a serious crash and a claim for emotional distress by the victim’s mother. The mother heard the crash while she was on the phone with her daughter. The case involved claims about the road and other possible causes of the crash. The Supreme Court said the mother did not need to know, at that exact moment, which defendant caused the crash. She needed to be aware of the injury-producing event. 

Why does that matter here?

Because a crash can involve several legal questions at once:

• What happened? 
• Who had a duty? 
• Did someone act carelessly? 
• Did that act cause the injury? 
• How serious was the injury? 
• Did another person’s conduct also play a part?

You cannot answer all of those questions with one sentence.

Recent Supreme Court cases help show how carefully California courts look at negligence claims.

Take Gutierrez v. Tostado, decided in 2025.

An ambulance rear-ended a truck on a California highway. The injured driver sued. The defendants argued that a shorter deadline for medical negligence claims should apply because an ambulance was carrying a patient.

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The court said the driver was claiming that the ambulance driver failed to drive safely. That duty came from being a driver on a public road, not from providing medical care to a patient. So, the court applied the two-year deadline for a general negligence claim. 

Why bring up an ambulance case in an article about fault?

Because it shows why the nature of the conduct matters.

Was the person acting as a doctor?

Or was the person simply driving a vehicle?

The answer can change which legal rule applies.

Then there is the Gilead Tenofovir Cases, decided in 2026.

The case involved claims against a drug maker. The Supreme Court looked at whether the company owed a duty based on its decision about when to bring a different drug to market. The court ruled that the claimed duty did not apply under the facts and legal rules before it. 

This case is not a car accident case. So, why mention it?

Because it makes one basic point clear: a negligence claim still starts with duty.

Before asking, “How much fault belongs to each person?” you may need to ask: Did the other person owe a legal duty?

Then: Did that person break the duty?

And then: Did that conduct cause the injury?

Only after those questions can the fault picture become clear.

There is another issue when suing a city or county in California.

Government Code section 911.2 generally gives a person six months to present a personal injury claim to a public entity. Section 945.4 generally requires that claim before filing a lawsuit for money or damages against the entity. 

So, there can be two separate questions:

• Who was at fault? And:
• Did the person follow the special rules for claims against the government?

Do not mix the two.

• California follows pure comparative negligence.
• Being partly at fault does not automatically end a personal injury claim.
• Your share of fault can reduce the damages you may recover.
• An insurance company’s fault percentage is not automatically a court finding.
• Different claims can have different deadlines, especially claims involving California cities and counties.

Twenty percent.

Forty percent.

Sixty percent.

Fault percentages look neat on paper. Accidents rarely do.

A driver may have made one mistake. Another driver may have made a bigger one. A bad road condition may have added another problem. Then someone gets hurt.

So, what happens next?

Comparative negligence in California comes down to a simple idea: California can look at everyone’s part in the accident instead of treating fault as all or nothing.

If you are trying to understand how shared fault could affect an injury claim, Blair & Ramirez LLP can help you understand the legal options and the issues that may matter. A free case review can provide a clearer picture of the facts, possible claims, and questions that may need answers. Contact Blair & Ramirez today.