Kentucky personal injury law is shaped by a concept known as comparative negligence—a system that can significantly impact the outcome of an accident claim. If you've been injured due to another person's carelessness, but you may have played a role in the incident, your ability to recover compensation depends heavily on how fault is assessed.

Understanding how comparative negligence operates in Kentucky is key to knowing your legal rights and the amount of compensation you may ultimately receive. Below is a detailed breakdown of how this system works and how it affects personal injury cases.

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a legal standard used to determine how fault is shared when more than one party contributes to an accident. Rather than assigning all blame to one party, it allows for a more flexible allocation of responsibility—and financial recovery—based on each party's role in the incident.

Kentucky follows a pure comparative negligence rule. This means that even if you are 99% responsible for your injuries, you can still pursue compensation for the 1% of the damages that weren't your fault.

Kentucky's Pure Comparative Negligence System

Unlike states that bar recovery if a person is more than 50% at fault, Kentucky law does not impose a threshold. Here's how it works:

  • If you are awarded $100,000 in damages but found to be 30% at fault, your compensation would be reduced by 30%. You would receive $70,000.
  • Even if you're 90% responsible, you could still recover 10% of your total damages.

This system is designed to encourage fair outcomes, especially in complex cases where fault isn't clear-cut. It recognizes that accidents rarely happen in a vacuum, and multiple factors often contribute.

How Fault is Determined in Kentucky

Assigning percentages of fault is a fact-specific process. Insurance adjusters, attorneys, judges, and juries look at the available evidence to determine how much responsibility each party holds.

Common types of evidence used to establish fault include:

Even statements made at the scene—such as apologies or admissions—can be used to argue for a higher percentage of fault.

Common Scenarios Where Comparative Negligence Arises

Comparative negligence comes into play in a variety of personal injury cases, including:

  • Car accidents: A driver rear-ended at a stoplight may be partly at fault if their brake lights weren't working.
  • Slip and fall incidents: A store might be liable for a wet floor, but the injured person may bear partial blame if they were texting while walking.
  • Bicycle accidents: A cyclist hit by a driver might share fault if they were riding against traffic.

In each of these examples, comparative negligence allows for a balanced outcome that accounts for everyone's actions, not just the primary wrongdoer.

Insurance Companies Use Comparative Fault to Minimize Payouts

Kentucky's pure comparative negligence system often benefits plaintiffs, but it can also be used by insurance companies to lower the amount they have to pay. Insurers may attempt to shift as much blame onto you as possible, knowing every percentage point reduces their financial exposure.

That's why it's important to avoid making statements that could be interpreted as admissions of fault and to work with a legal team that can push back against unfair blame-shifting tactics.

Comparative Negligence and Settlements

Most personal injury claims are resolved through settlements rather than trials. During settlement negotiations, comparative fault plays a critical role in determining how much compensation you can expect.

If both sides agree that you share a certain percentage of fault, the settlement offer will be adjusted accordingly. For example:

  • You have $50,000 in damages
  • You are deemed 20% at fault
  • You may settle for $40,000

In contentious cases, where fault is hotly disputed, reaching a settlement may require more extensive evidence and legal strategy.

Juries and Comparative Fault in Court

If your case goes to trial, Kentucky juries are instructed to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved. The judge then reduces the awarded damages based on the jury's findings.

This system encourages thorough preparation. A well-presented case—supported by expert witnesses, accident reconstruction, and credible documentation—can persuade a jury to assign a lower fault percentage to the plaintiff, preserving a higher award.

Comparative Negligence in Medical Malpractice and Product Liability

Comparative negligence isn't limited to car crashes and falls. In medical malpractice cases, a patient might be partially blamed for ignoring follow-up instructions. In product liability claims, a consumer's misuse of a product could reduce their compensation.

Even in these complex cases, Kentucky's approach remains the same: fault is divided, and compensation is awarded accordingly.

Key Points to Remember

  • You can still recover damages in Kentucky, no matter your share of fault.
  • Your compensation is reduced by your percentage of responsibility.
  • Insurance companies will use this rule to minimize payouts.
  • Strong evidence and legal representation can influence how fault is divided.

Conclusion

Kentucky's pure comparative negligence system opens the door for injured individuals to pursue compensation even when they've made mistakes. While this can work in a plaintiff's favor, it also creates opportunities for insurance companies to limit financial liability. The key is building a case that clearly defines your share of responsibility—and keeps it as low as possible.

Need Legal Help? Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law is One Phone Call Away

Navigating Kentucky Personal Injury Claims can be challenging. Fortunately, you don't need to do it alone. The experienced lawyers at Brandon J. Broderick, Attorney at Law, are available 24/7 to help you understand your legal options, gather necessary evidence, and build a strong case to secure the settlement you deserve.

Contact us now for a free legal review.