Common Myths About Comparative Fault in South Carolina

A critical yet often misunderstood legal concept in personal injury cases is “comparative fault.” This legal concept determines how fault is distributed among parties after an accident. The concept of comparative fault can significantly affect the compensation a claimant may recover in a personal injury claim. Unfortunately, many myths abound about comparative fault that can cause confusion and, in some cases, discourage people from pursuing legitimate claims. In this article, we debunk some of the most prevalent myths about comparative fault in South Carolina.

Myth #1: If I am Partially at Fault, I Cannot Recover Compensation

One of the most prevalent myths about comparative fault in South Carolina is that you cannot recover compensation if you bear any responsibility for your accident. This is not true. The comparative fault rule is different from the contributory negligence rule. While the contributory fault rule bars individuals from recovering compensation if they are even slightly to blame for their accident, the comparative negligence rule allows recovery even if you are partially at fault. However, if you are partially at fault for your accident, the compensation you recover is reduced based on your percentage of fault. For instance, if you are 30% at fault, your compensation will be reduced by 30%.

Under South Carolina’s modified comparative negligence rule, plaintiffs can’t receive compensation if they are more than 50% to blame for their accident.

Myth #2: Comparative Fault Only Applies to Car Accidents

Often, people associate comparative fault with car accidents. However, this legal concept does not apply to car accident cases alone. In South Carolina, comparative fault applies to various personal injury cases, including slip and fall cases and product liability. For instance, suppose you slipped and fell in a grocery store and weren’t paying attention to warning signs. In such a case, your negligence may be considered when determining liability and compensation.

Myth #3: Fault Percentages Cannot Be Negotiated

Another common misconception is that the extent of fault cannot be negotiated. Some people believe that the process of determining fault is fixed. The truth is that fault can be negotiated between the involved parties and their lawyers. During settlement negotiations, involved parties often discuss the percentage of blame each is willing to accept. Legal representatives can also challenge an unfair fault allocation and present evidence to argue for a lower percentage of fault.

Myth #4: You Don’t Need a Lawyer for a Comparative Fault Case

One of the most dangerous myths you can fall for is that you don’t need an attorney for a comparative negligence fault case. While you are not legally obligated to hire an attorney, hiring one is in your best interest. Cases involving comparative negligence can turn complex quickly. For example, the other party’s insurance company may argue that you bear more responsibility than you actually do. In such a case, a skilled attorney can gather and present evidence and negotiate aggressively to ensure fault is fairly allocated.

Contact a Charleston Personal Injury Attorney

If you have questions or need help with your personal injury case, contact our skilled Charleston personal injury attorney at Gus Anastopoulo Law Firm.

Source:

scstatehouse.gov/code/t15c038.php