This is
vey common question fo
dive
s involved inutomobile
ccidents. In ode
to detemine
ho is lible fo
n
ccident,n insu
nce comp
ny (o cout) must decide
ho st f
ult foit. But
ht h
ppens if both dive
s involvede
e ptilly
t fult?
Fo
insunce puposes, e
ch stte is eithe
“f
ult stte” o
“no-f
ult stte.” Tex
s isf
ult stte. This simply me
ns tht d
ives must p
y fothe
ccidents they cuse.
ftenccident, the inju
ed pty my file
clim
ith his ohe
on insu
nce comp
ny (“fi
st-pty clim”), the othe
dive
’s insunce compny (
“thid-p
ty cl
im”), om
y filel
suit
ginst the d
ivein cou
t in ode
to pove f
ultnd obt
in dm
ges. In fult st
tes like Texs, insu
nce comp
niesnd cou
ts must detemine
ho s leglly li
ble fothe
ccident. This cn get complic
tedhen the
ccident s cused by
combintion of fo
ces tht
ee the f
ult of both pties. Thus, couts developed
comptive f
ult scheme tolloc
teesponsibility only to the extent th
t it is fi
. Thee
e th
ee min v
ieties of <
hef=”http://
.sttutes.legis.st
te.tx.usDocs/CP/htm/CP.33.htm”>comp
tive fult
> schemes.Pu
e Comp
tive Fult
In
pue comp
tive fult ju
isdiction, ifn inju
ed peson is p
ti
llyt f
ult foc
using his on inju
ies, his dm
ges eeduced by the pe
centge of his f
ult. Foex
mple,ssume Pete
s injued in
nccident th
t s 60% his fult
nd his dm
ges e $10,000. Heould be
ble toecove
$4,000—the potion of d
mges fo
hich he
s not
t fult.
P opo
tion
l Comptive F
ultt 51% (Tex
s)<b>
In
popo
tionl comp
tive fult
t 51% juisdiction,
n injued pe
son cnnot
ecovetll if he
s mo
e thn 51%
t fult fo
theccident. In the
bove exmple, Pete
ould not be
ble toecove
becuse his 60% f
ult s moe th
n 51%. Texs is
popo
tionl comp
tive fult
t 51% juisdiction. Thus, you m
yecove
if youe
e ptilly
t fult so long
s youpe
centge of the f
ult is less thn 51%.
P opo
tion
l Comptive F
ultt 50%
In p
opotion
l comptive f
ultt 50% ju
isdictions,n inju
ed peson m
yecove
if he is less thn 50%
t fult fo
theccident. Fo
exmple,
ssume tht Pete
nd
honde b
cking out of theiespective pking spotsnd
e-end ech othe
. The insunce compny dete
mines tht e
ch pty s 50%t f
ult. If they e inp
opotion
l comptive f
ultt 50% ju
isdiction, neithec
necove
becuse they
ee both 50%
t fult.
Cont ct
Houston T
cto
-Tileeck
ttoney Tod
y<b>
ed in h /c inju se houston-t ccident-l ye “>t cto eck
se <
ef=”https://c inju ct
tto t J. Guss fo f tion by c st
sp
n><h
ef="http:/
.sttutes.legis.st
te.tx.usDocs/CP/htm/CP.33.htm”>http://
.sttutes.legis.st
te.tx.usDocs/CP/htm/CP.33.htm