A handful of U.S. states have no-fault insurance laws that require drivers seeking compensation after a car accident to file against their own personal injury protection (PIP) auto insurance, regardless of who caused the accident. Unlike the no-fault states, Illinois has fault-based insurance laws, where it matters who caused the accident or how much fault each driver contributed. Under the state’s modified comparative negligence system, a car accident victim seeking to recover damages, like medical expenses, lost wages, and compensation for pain and suffering, must file a claim against the driver or other entity who caused the accident. A successful claim requires compelling evidence of the at-fault driver’s liability.
Illinois law and jury instructions describe modified comparative negligence in the following way:
“The plaintiff’s contributory negligence, if any, which is 50% or less of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, does not bar his recovery. However, the total amount of damages to which he would otherwise be entitled is reduced in proportion to the amount of his negligence. This is known as comparative negligence. If the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is more than 50% of the total proximate cause of the injury or damage for which recovery is sought, the defendant[s] shall be found not liable.”
In other words, an injury victim may still recover a portion of their total damages if they are partly at fault for the accident, as long as they are no more than 50% responsible. Then, the insurance company deducts the injury victim’s percentage of fault from the payout on their compensation claim.
This system is known as a “modified” comparative negligence system compared to the pure comparative negligence system found in some states, which allows even a driver who is 99% at fault to recover one percent of their damages.
In fault-based car accident states like Illinois, the insurance companies of drivers involved in a collision investigate the accident to determine the cause and each driver’s percentage of fault. When a car accident survivor or the family member of a deceased car accident victim has a Chicago accident attorney representing their best interests, the attorney also investigates on behalf of their client, protecting them from an insurance company that might wish to shift liability their way to protect their profits unfairly. An example of modified comparative negligence is as follows:
Suppose one driver rear-ends another driver in traffic. It might seem as though the rear driver is necessarily at fault because they hit the other car from behind. But what if it was early on a foggy morning, and the driver in front didn’t have the lights on and was missing a brake light? The insurance company of the rear driver could assign the front driver 30% of fault for the rear-end accident because they failed to ensure that their lights were working and in use. If that driver has a claim for $100,000 in medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering, the insurance company would only pay them $70,000. The driver of the car that hit them would be 70% at fault and unable to collect compensation because they were more than 50% responsible.
The modified comparative negligence system in Illinois is beneficial in that it allows those car accident injury victims who contributed to their accident to recover a portion of their damages. Unfortunately, it may also incentivize the insurance company to assign undue fault to an injury victim so they can protect their profits. When a car accident victim has an assertive Chicago injury attorney on their side, the attorney investigates and documents evidence of the other party’s liability, protecting their client’s rights throughout the process of recovering compensation.
"*" indicates required fields