When multiple parties share responsibility for a rideshare accident, comparative fault rules determine how damages are allocated. Understanding these rules helps you anticipate how shared blame might affect your compensation.

What Is Comparative Fault?

Comparative fault (also called comparative negligence) is a legal doctrine that assigns percentages of responsibility to each party involved in an accident. Your compensation may be reduced by your share of fault.

Example: If you suffer $100,000 in damages but are found 20% at fault, you may only recover $80,000.

Types of Comparative Fault Systems

States use different comparative fault approaches:

Pure comparative fault: You can recover damages even if you're 99% at fault, though recovery is reduced by your fault percentage. California, New York, and Florida use this system.

Modified comparative fault (50% rule): You cannot recover if you're 50% or more at fault. Many states use this threshold.

Modified comparative fault (51% rule): You cannot recover if you're 51% or more at fault. Texas and other states use this threshold.

Contributory negligence: In a few states (Maryland, Virginia, DC, Alabama, North Carolina), any fault on your part completely bars recovery. This harsh rule makes even slight contributory negligence devastating.

Common Comparative Fault Arguments

Insurance companies and defendants frequently argue that accident victims share fault:

Failure to wear seatbelt: Arguments that injuries would have been less severe with proper restraint use.

Distraction: Claims that the victim was on their phone or otherwise distracted.

Failure to keep proper lookout: Arguments that you should have seen and avoided the danger.

Sudden movements: For passengers, claims that sudden movements distracted the driver.

Intoxication: If you were impaired, this may be used to argue shared fault.

Comparative Fault Among Multiple Defendants

When multiple parties are at fault, comparative fault also applies between defendants:

The rideshare driver may bear primary fault for the accident.

Other motorists may share fault if they contributed to the collision.

The rideshare company may have separate liability for negligent hiring or training.

Government entities may share fault for dangerous road conditions.

Impact on Rideshare Claims

Comparative fault determinations affect:

Settlement negotiations: Insurers offer less when they believe you share fault.

Trial outcomes: Juries assign fault percentages that directly reduce awards.

Which claims to pursue: If one defendant argues your fault, pursuing other defendants may yield better results.

Defending Against Comparative Fault Arguments

Document the defendant's negligence thoroughly: Strong evidence of the rideshare driver's fault reduces focus on your conduct.

Gather witness testimony: Witnesses can counter false claims about your behavior.

Work with experts: Accident reconstructionists can establish fault based on physical evidence.

Know your state's rules: Understanding the specific comparative fault system helps you evaluate settlement offers.