How Kentucky's Comparative Fault Rules Affect Personal Injury Claims
You may believe someone else caused your accident, only to have an insurance adjuster tell you that you were partly responsible too. In Kentucky, shared fault does not necessarily prevent you from recovering compensation.
The state’s pure comparative fault rule generally reduces your recovery by your percentage of fault instead. That means the difference between being assigned 10%, 30%, or 60% of the responsibility can have a substantial effect on what you recover.
If you're pursuing an injury claim in Louisville, the percentage of fault can be nearly as important as the amount of your damages. Slechter Law Firm Attorneys at Law examines what each person did, how those actions contributed to the accident, and what the available evidence shows when responsibility is disputed.
Kentucky Uses Pure Comparative Fault
Kentucky uses a pure comparative fault system. Under Kentucky's fault-allocation law, when more than one party is at fault in a tort action, the factfinder determines the damages and assigns percentages of fault. The court then determines the claimant’s award based on those findings.
The “pure” part makes an important difference. There is no percentage of fault under this rule that automatically eliminates an injured person’s recovery. Instead, the amount recovered is reduced according to that person’s share of responsibility.
Suppose your damages are determined to be $100,000 and you are assigned 20% of the fault. Your recovery would be reduced by 20%, leaving $80,000. Even if you were assigned 60% of the fault, comparative fault itself would not automatically prevent recovery, although the reduction would be substantial.
Fault Percentages Depend on Each Party's Conduct
Fault is based on the conduct that contributed to the injury, not on an automatic formula. Kentucky law directs the factfinder to consider both the nature of each party’s conduct and the extent to which that conduct contributed to the damages claimed.
The evidence will depend on the type of accident. In a collision, for example, photographs, video, witness accounts, vehicle damage, or other records may help establish what each driver did. In a premises liability case, the evidence may instead concern the condition of the property, warnings, what the property owner knew, and the injured person’s own actions.
There is no predetermined percentage for a particular mistake. Two accidents that initially appear similar can result in different fault allocations because the underlying conduct and evidence differ.
Shared Fault Directly Affects Your Recovery
The percentage assigned to you matters because it translates directly into a reduction in damages. Even when the amount of your losses is established, your ultimate recovery can decrease if some of the responsibility is attributed to you.
Consider a claim involving $200,000 in damages. If you are found 10% at fault, the reduction would be $20,000. At 30% fault, the reduction would be $60,000. The damages themselves have not changed; what changes is the portion you can recover after your share of fault is taken into account.
That makes an allegation of shared fault more than a side issue in a personal injury claim. Slechter Law Firm's personal injury services include examining accident evidence and addressing disputes over how responsibility should be allocated.
Being Mostly at Fault Does Not Bar Recovery
Kentucky's pure comparative fault system does not impose a 50% or 51% cutoff that automatically bars recovery once your share of responsibility crosses that threshold.
If, for example, your damages total $100,000 and you are found 65% responsible, your share of fault would reduce the award by $65,000, leaving $35,000. The same principle applies as the percentage rises: greater fault means a greater reduction, but comparative fault itself does not create an all-or-nothing threshold.
This is one reason the actual allocation deserves careful attention. A personal injury claim does not necessarily disappear simply because the injured person contributed to the accident, but the percentage ultimately assigned can significantly affect its value.
More Than Two Parties Can Share Fault
Kentucky's comparative fault statute also addresses claims involving fault by multiple parties. The factfinder can assign percentages among claimants, defendants, third-party defendants, and certain people who have been released from liability, with each percentage reflecting that party’s share of the total fault covered by the statute.
An accident may therefore require looking beyond a simple dispute between two people. A collision could involve the conduct of several drivers. Another injury could involve more than one person or business whose actions contributed to what happened.
Identifying the parties whose conduct actually contributed to the injury helps create a more complete picture of responsibility. It does not automatically reduce the injured person’s percentage of fault; the allocation must still reflect the evidence about each party’s conduct and its connection to the damages.
An Insurer's Fault Assessment Is Not the Final Word
An insurance company may argue that your own actions contributed to an accident, but its assessment does not by itself establish your legal percentage of fault. The allocation depends on the facts and evidence and, if the case proceeds to trial, the findings made through the legal process.
That distinction matters when an insurer assigns significant responsibility to you and reduces its evaluation of the claim accordingly. The important questions are what you actually did, whether that conduct contributed to the injury, and how the evidence supports the proposed division of responsibility.
You do not have to assume that a percentage suggested during the claims process is necessarily the percentage the evidence supports. Because every additional percentage of fault assigned to you can reduce your recovery, the basis for that allocation deserves careful examination.
Protect Your Claim When Fault Is Disputed
A disagreement over fault can directly affect what you recover. Slechter Law Firm Attorneys at Law examines the evidence behind those allegations and how each party’s conduct contributed to the accident.
Attorneys Mat A. Slechter and Meredith Kirklin Slechter founded the Louisville firm to represent individuals rather than insurance companies or large corporations. The husband-and-wife team provides hands-on attention and handles cases through litigation and appeals when necessary.
The firm serves Louisville, Lexington, and Lexington. If you have been blamed for part of your accident, contact the Louisville personal injury attorneys to find out what the evidence may mean for your claim.