Comparative Negligence in Washington: Don’t Count Yourself Out
What “comparative negligence” means—without the legalese
Imagine a jury values your losses at $100,000 but decides you are 20% at fault. Under Washington’s rules, your award becomes $80,000. Even if someone says you were mostly at fault, you may still recover something—the question is how much, and that depends on proof.
In Southwest Washington, we have recovered policy limits, the maximum that was really available, despite attempts by the other party to shift fault to our client.
Where injuries are severe or catastrophic, this sort of recovery is often reasonably possible and at the Dalton Law Office, PLLC, we are here to fight for the best possible outcome.
Strategies to Maximize Your Recovery Even if You Share Some Fault
Lock down the scene early.
Vehicles, intersections, lighting, and weather change; we capture them before they do.
Use qualified experts.
Reconstructionists, human-factors and visibility experts, treating providers, and economists help jurors (and adjusters) understand what really happened—and what it costs.
Tell the human story.
Pain journals, work records, and day-in-the-life evidence connect medical findings to the way your life has changed.
Push back on blame-shifting.
We counter selective photos, cherry-picked timestamps, and “you should have…” narratives with full-context timelines.
Negotiate from strength and litigate when needed.
Solid proof moves numbers. If the offer stays unfair, we file suit and let a jury decide.
How fault gets decided
Fault is not a gut feeling. It’s built from evidence: scene photos and measurements, Event Data Recorder (vehicle “black box”) downloads, traffic/business camera video, 911 audio and dispatch logs, phone records where appropriate, witness statements, and careful documentation of your injuries and limitations. We move quickly to preserve and organize this material so the facts—not guesses—drive the percentages.
When the story is messy
Real life is rarely tidy. Maybe you were speeding a little, looked away for a moment, or crossed mid-block. Maybe the store mopped and left no warning signs, but you were carrying bags. Comparative negligence recognizes that multiple choices and conditions can combine to cause harm. Our job is to:
- Separate honest mistakes from truly dangerous conduct by others.
- Show how the other side had the last clear chance to avoid the harm.
- Demonstrate how conditions (visibility, design, maintenance, lighting, training) shifted risk onto those who should have prevented it.
Practice areas where comparative fault often comes up
Comparative fault can play a role in many different types of personal injury cases, but that doesn’t mean you can’t still recover. In car, motorcycle, and trucking crashes, disputes often arise over issues like speed, visibility, following distance, or distraction. Pedestrian and bicycle cases may involve questions about crosswalks, sight lines, or whether a driver making a turn was paying attention. Premises liability and fall cases—such as those caused by wet floors, uneven surfaces, poor lighting, or missing handrails—frequently lead to arguments about whether the injured person should have noticed the hazard. Even in dog bite and unsafe property claims, defense lawyers may try to shift blame by pointing to notice, prior incidents, or the adequacy of fencing and signage.
In all of these situations, Washington’s comparative negligence law allows injured people to seek compensation even if they are found partly at fault. The amount may be reduced by their share of responsibility, but strong advocacy can still result in a meaningful recovery that helps rebuild life after an injury.
We handle these cases across Washington, with a focus on Southwest Washington communities.
Multiple parties and percentages
Sometimes more than one person or company shares responsibility—another driver, a contractor, or a property owner. Washington juries (or judges) assign a percentage of fault to each responsible party so the total equals 100%. We identify every responsible entity and pursue the portion they owe.
What if the insurance company uses your “percentage” to lowball?
Insurers often inflate a claimant’s share of fault to shrink offers. We level the field by presenting the full evidence, demanding clear explanations, and, when necessary, filing suit. If your own insurer handles part of the claim (like PIP or UM/UIM), they owe duties of good faith. If they act unreasonably, we can hold them accountable under Washington law.
The bottom line
Sharing some fault does not end your case in Washington. It just means lawyers at Dalton Law Office, PLLC, work that much harder to prove what really happened and maximize what you can recover—so you have the resources to heal and move forward.