Utah Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Claims

Utah Comparative Negligence: Can I Recover if I Was Partly at Fault for a Car Accident?

Yes. Being partially at fault for a Utah car accident does not automatically prevent you from recovering compensation. Utah follows a modified comparative-fault system.

The important question is not simply whether you made a mistake; it is how your fault compares with the combined fault of the defendants and other persons to whom fault may legally be allocated.

Utah’s comparative-fault statutes begin at Utah Code §§ 78B-5-817 through 78B-5-823. Utah Code § 78B-5-817 defines “fault” broadly as an actionable breach of a legal duty, act, or omission that proximately causes or contributes to the injury or damages. The definition expressly includes negligence and comparative negligence, among other forms of fault.

Utah’s “Less Than 50 Percent” Rule

People sometimes call Utah a “49 percent state.” That shorthand is useful, but the statute is more precise.

Under Utah Code § 78B-5-818, an injured person’s own fault does not, by itself, bar recovery. The injured person may recover when the combined fault of the defendant or defendants—together with other fault that the statute requires to be counted—exceeds the injured person’s fault.

In a simple two-driver collision, this generally means a plaintiff who is 49% at fault may still recover, but a plaintiff who is 50% at fault against a defendant who is also 50% at fault cannot. See Utah Code § 78B-5-818.

Your Percentage of Fault Can Reduce Your Recovery

Comparative fault affects more than whether you can bring a claim. It can also reduce the amount you recover.

If a jury finds $100,000 in total damages but assigns 20% of the fault to you, your recovery is generally reduced to reflect that allocation of fault. In a straightforward two-party example, that would leave $80,000 attributable to the defendant’s 80% share of fault.

That is why a seemingly modest argument by an insurance adjuster—“we think you were 20% at fault”—can have substantial financial consequences in a serious injury case.

The jury never knows that their comparative fault percentages reduce the plaintiff’s recovery. So 20 percent fault assigned to plaintiff reduces a $100,000 total jury verdict to $80,000.

Who Actually Determines Fault?

An insurance adjuster can take a position on fault during settlement negotiations, but the adjuster does not have the final legal authority to decide comparative fault if the case proceeds to trial.

The fact finder does. In a jury trial, the jury allocates fault. In a bench trial, the judge serves as the fact finder.

Utah Code § 78B-5-818(4) authorizes the fact finder to allocate a percentage or proportion of fault among the person seeking recovery, defendants, certain immune persons, and properly identified nonparties when there is a factual and legal basis to do so.

This matters because fault is not always limited to the two people whose names appear in the lawsuit.

How a Utah Jury Uses a Special Verdict

Comparative-fault cases are commonly submitted to the jury through a special verdict. Utah Code § 78B-5-819 provides for separate findings concerning total damages and the percentage or proportion of fault attributable to the persons whose fault is properly before the jury.

A simplified verdict sequence in a two-driver negligence case might ask questions such as:

Was the defendant negligent?
Was the defendant’s negligence a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages?
Was the plaintiff also negligent, and if so, was that negligence a cause of the plaintiff’s injuries and damages?
What percentage of total fault is attributable to each person?
What amount of total damages did the plaintiff sustain?

The precise verdict form depends on the claims, defenses, parties, nonparties, evidence, and jury instructions in the particular case.

The important point is that the jury determines total damages and allocates fault; the court then applies Utah law to the verdict.

Insurance Adjusters Often Raise Comparative Fault

Comparative fault is frequently disputed before a lawsuit is ever filed.

An adjuster may contend that an injured driver was:

Speeding;
Following too closely;
Distracted;
Failing to keep a proper lookout;
Making an unsafe lane change; or
Able to avoid the collision.

Those assertions can affect settlement negotiations, but they are not a jury verdict.

A lawyer evaluating a comparative-fault defense should ask a different question: what admissible evidence actually supports the claimed percentage of fault?

Evidence That Can Matter in a Comparative-Fault Dispute

The evidence needed depends on the collision. In a disputed or catastrophic-injury case, proving fault may require substantially more than reading the police report.

Useful evidence can include:

Scene photographs and vehicle-damage photographs;
Body-camera, dash-camera, surveillance, or traffic-camera video;
911 recordings and witness statements;
Electronic or vehicle data when available;
Measurements, roadway evidence, and physical evidence from the collision scene;
Testimony from independent witnesses; and
An accident-reconstruction expert when the mechanics of the collision justify the expense.

In a significant case, witnesses identified in a police report may need to be located and interviewed promptly. Memories fade, video is overwritten, vehicles are repaired or destroyed, and physical evidence disappears.

Comparative-fault disputes are often won or lost on evidence gathered early.

If you were injured in a collision, a Utah personal injury attorney can evaluate the available evidence and the insurance company’s position on fault.

Sometimes Filing a Lawsuit Is Necessary

A liability carrier may maintain an unreasonable comparative-fault position during the claims process.

Filing a lawsuit changes the process. The parties obtain formal discovery tools, witnesses can be deposed, records can be subpoenaed, experts can analyze the evidence, and disputed factual issues can ultimately be presented to a judge or jury.

Filing suit does not guarantee that an insurer will abandon its position, and every case is different. But litigation can force a comparative-fault assertion to be tested against actual evidence rather than remaining simply an adjuster’s negotiating position.

Do Not Assume the Insurance Company’s Fault Percentage Is Final

If an insurance company tells you that you were 20%, 30%, or 50% responsible for a Utah collision, that number deserves scrutiny.

In a serious personal injury case, a disputed allocation of fault can change the value of the claim by tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars.

An experienced Utah personal injury trial lawyer can investigate the collision, preserve evidence, evaluate whether the insurer’s comparative-fault theory is supported by the facts and Utah law, and, when necessary, file the case and ask a jury to decide fault.

If you have questions about comparative fault after a Utah car accident, contact Howard Lewis & Petersen to discuss your situation with an attorney.

Utah Statutory References

Utah Code § 78B-5-817 — Definitions, including the statutory definition of “fault.”
Utah Code §§ 78B-5-818 through 78B-5-819 — Comparative negligence and special verdicts.

This article provides general information about Utah personal injury law and is not legal advice for any particular case.