What Is Comparative Negligence? (Explained)

An adjuster calls, agrees that you were hurt, agrees the other driver made a mistake, and then says the words that quietly change everything: we are assigning you thirty percent of the fault. Nothing about your injury changed. Nothing about your bills changed. But the number at the end of your claim just dropped by nearly a third, and it dropped because of a doctrine most people have never heard of until it is applied to them.

That doctrine is comparative negligence, and it is the single concept that most changes what a claim is worth. This explainer covers what it means, how a fault percentage is applied to the settlement math, the three different rules that jurisdictions use and why the difference matters enormously, where a percentage actually comes from, and what evidence realistically moves it. It builds on the valuation framework in our explainer on what a personal injury claim is worth, because comparative fault is the adjustment applied to that whole number. You can watch a fault share reshape an illustrative range in about a minute with our settlement range estimator.

What comparative negligence actually means

Comparative negligence is the legal system’s answer to an uncomfortable fact: most accidents are not one person’s fault in a clean, total sense. A driver runs a stop sign, but the other driver was going ten over. A store leaves a spill unmarked, but the shopper was reading a phone. Rather than forcing a choice between full compensation and none, comparative negligence allocates responsibility in percentages that are meant to add up to the whole of the incident.

Once those percentages exist, they do arithmetic work. The claim is first valued as if the injured person bore no responsibility at all, using the ordinary machinery of economic damages plus non-economic damages. Then the injured person’s own share is subtracted from that value. The doctrine does not change what the injury was worth; it changes how much of that worth the injured person is allowed to collect.

That two-step structure is worth holding onto, because it explains a pattern that confuses many claimants. An adjuster can agree with your medical bills, agree with your lost wages, agree that the injury was real, and still arrive at an offer far below what the valuation math suggested. The gap is not usually a dispute about damages. It is a fault percentage doing its work at the end.

Why fault is a percentage, not a verdict

People arrive at an injury claim expecting a verdict: someone was at fault, someone was not. The system does not work that way outside of the simplest cases, and understanding why saves a great deal of frustration.

Negligence, in ordinary terms, means failing to take the care a reasonable person would take in the circumstances. Two people can both fall short of that standard in the same few seconds. The law’s older approach was to treat any failure by the injured person as fatal to the claim, which produced outcomes most people found unjust: a badly hurt person recovering nothing because of a small lapse of their own. Comparative negligence emerged as the proportional alternative.

The consequence is that fault is a spectrum rather than a switch. Instead of asking who was at fault, the real question becomes how much, and that question has no single correct answer. Reasonable people looking at the same crash reach different allocations. That is not a flaw being hidden from you; it is the honest nature of the exercise, and it is precisely what makes the number arguable.

It also means you should be suspicious of any statement that a percentage is simply what it is. A percentage is a position, held by someone with an interest in the outcome, until it is agreed or decided.

How a fault percentage reduces what you recover

The arithmetic is simpler than the doctrine. Take the claim’s full value, multiply by your fault percentage, and subtract that amount. What remains is what the comparative rule allows you to recover, before any further adjustments like policy limits, liens, or fees.

Consider an illustrative claim built the way our explainer on how pain and suffering is calculated describes. Say documented medical bills of $12,000 and lost wages of $4,000, giving $16,000 in economic damages, and a moderate severity that supports a 2.0 multiplier, for a gross claim value of $32,000. That $32,000 is the pre-fault figure: what the claim would be worth if the injured person bore no responsibility.

Now apply a 30 percent fault share. Thirty percent of $32,000 is $9,600, so the recovery becomes $22,400. Nothing about the bills or the suffering changed. A single number, agreed in a phone call, removed $9,600.

The most useful way to internalize this is per point. On a $32,000 claim, one percentage point of fault is worth $320. Ten points is $3,200. That is the real reason a fault conversation deserves as much preparation as a damages conversation, and often more.

The three fault regimes in American injury law

Jurisdictions do not all handle shared fault the same way. Three broad approaches exist, and the difference between them is not academic: the same facts and the same injury can produce a substantial recovery under one and nothing at all under another.

The first is pure comparative negligence, where recovery is reduced strictly in proportion to fault with no cutoff, so even a heavily responsible claimant recovers something.

The second is modified comparative negligence, the most common family, which reduces proportionally up to a threshold and then bars recovery entirely once the claimant’s share crosses it. The threshold is commonly described as a 50 percent bar or a 51 percent bar, and the one-point difference between those two formulations decides real cases.

The third is contributory negligence, the historical rule, retained in only a small number of jurisdictions, under which any fault attributed to the injured person can defeat the claim outright.

This article describes how each rule operates. It deliberately does not tell you which states apply which rule, because that mapping changes through legislation and court decisions and because a wrong answer here would be worse than no answer. Which rule governs your claim, and how the courts where you are have interpreted it, is a question for a licensed attorney in your state.

Pure comparative negligence

Under a pure comparative rule, the reduction is proportional all the way up the scale. A claimant found 10 percent responsible keeps 90 percent of the claim’s value. A claimant found 80 percent responsible still keeps 20 percent. There is no point at which the door closes.

On the running illustrative claim of $32,000, that produces a smooth slope. At 10 percent fault the recovery is $28,800. At 30 percent it is $22,400. At half responsibility the recovery is $16,000. At 60 percent it is $12,800. Each step down costs $320 per point, consistently, with no discontinuity anywhere.

The practical character of a pure rule is that fault fights are about money rather than survival. Losing an argument over ten points is expensive but not fatal, and even a claim where the injured person was mostly responsible retains some value worth pursuing if the damages are large enough. A catastrophically injured person who was substantially at fault may still have a claim worth serious attention, because a modest fraction of a very large number is still a large number.

The flip side is that insurers understand this too. Under a pure rule, pushing a claimant’s percentage up is a reliable way to reduce exposure by a predictable amount, so the pressure on the percentage is steady rather than dramatic.

Modified comparative negligence and the 50 or 51 percent bar

Modified comparative negligence behaves exactly like the pure rule until the claimant’s share approaches the threshold, at which point it stops behaving like arithmetic and starts behaving like a cliff.

The two common formulations differ by a single point. Under a 51 percent bar, a claimant recovers as long as their share is not greater than 50 percent, so an even split still pays. Under a 50 percent bar, a claimant recovers only if their share is less than 50 percent, so an even split pays nothing. On the illustrative $32,000 claim, a claimant assessed at exactly 50 percent would recover $16,000 under the first formulation and $0 under the second. Same facts, same injury, same percentage, opposite outcomes.

That cliff reshapes the entire negotiation. When a claimant sits anywhere near the threshold, the argument is no longer about a few thousand dollars of reduction; it is about whether the claim exists. An insurer with a plausible argument that the claimant was slightly more than half responsible has an enormous incentive to press it, because winning that argument is worth the whole claim rather than a slice of it.

It also means claimants near the bar should be extremely careful about casual admissions. A sentence that shifts the perceived allocation from 45 to 55 percent is not a small concession under this rule. It is the difference between a claim and no claim.

Contributory negligence: the harsh rule

Contributory negligence is the rule comparative negligence was invented to replace, and it survives in only a small number of jurisdictions. Its logic is absolute: if the injured person contributed to their own harm at all, the claim fails. There is no sliding scale and no partial recovery.

The severity of that outcome is easy to state and hard to overstate. On the running illustrative example, a claimant with $16,000 in documented economic damages and a $32,000 valuation who is found even slightly responsible recovers nothing. The bills remain. The lost income remains. The claim does not.

Because the rule is so unforgiving, the jurisdictions that keep it have generally developed doctrines and exceptions that soften it in particular circumstances, and the way those exceptions are pleaded and proved is genuinely technical work. This is not a corner of the law where a well-organized claimant can reliably self-advocate.

The honest practical guidance is short. If there is any possibility that a contributory rule governs your claim, treat that as a reason to speak with a licensed attorney in your state before you give a recorded statement or discuss the sequence of events with an adjuster, because in that setting a stray concession is not a discount. It is the end of the matter.

Why which regime applies is a question for your state

The rule that governs a claim is not chosen by the insurer, by the claimant, or by convenience. It comes from the law of the jurisdiction where the claim sits, and working out which jurisdiction that is can itself be a question when an accident crosses state lines, involves a vehicle registered elsewhere, or arises from a policy issued in another state.

These rules also move. Legislatures amend them, courts interpret them, thresholds are adjusted, and exceptions accumulate through decisions. A list of which state uses which rule is exactly the kind of fact that is stale the moment it is written down, and acting on a stale version of it can cost a claim. That is why you will not find such a list here.

What you can safely take from this article is the mechanics: what each rule does to a number, where the cliffs are, and what kinds of evidence bear on a percentage. What you should get from a licensed attorney in your state is which rule applies to you, where any threshold sits, how the local courts have read it, and whether any exception is relevant to your facts.

If that sounds like an evasion, consider the alternative. A confident but wrong statement about which rule applies where would be the most dangerous sentence on the page.

A worked example: one claim under three rules

Numbers here are invented to show the shape of the math and promise nothing. Picture a claimant, call him Ray, struck while making a left turn. His documented medical bills come to $12,000 and his lost wages to $4,000, so his economic damages are $16,000. His treatment supports a moderate severity, so an illustrative 2.0 multiplier produces a gross claim value of $32,000, of which roughly $16,000 is the estimated non-economic portion.

The insurer accepts that its driver was speeding, but argues Ray turned across an inadequate gap, and assigns him 30 percent of the fault.

Under a pure comparative rule, Ray’s recovery is $32,000 less 30 percent, or $22,400. Under either modified formulation, 30 percent is comfortably below both the 50 and the 51 percent bars, so the result is identical: $22,400. Under a contributory rule, Ray’s 30 percent share defeats the claim and the recovery is $0.

Now change one fact. Suppose a witness statement had put Ray at 55 percent instead. Under the pure rule he recovers $14,400. Under either modified rule he recovers nothing. Under the contributory rule he still recovers nothing. The same twenty-five point shift is expensive under one regime and total under two others, which is the clearest possible illustration of why the governing rule matters as much as the percentage itself.

What a fault share costs at each level

Because the reduction is linear under a pure rule and up to the bar under a modified one, the cost of fault is easy to see on one scale. The chart below applies a range of fault shares to the same illustrative $32,000 claim value from the worked example.

The chart makes the linearity visible, and linearity is the point. There is no threshold at which fault suddenly becomes cheap or expensive under a proportional rule; the cost per point is constant. What is not visible on the chart is the cliff, which is why the note carries it. On a modified rule the bottom rows are not smaller bars, they are absent bars.

Where the fault percentage actually comes from

A fault percentage feels official when it arrives, usually in a letter or a phone call, expressed to the nearest five or ten points. It helps to know how it was produced.

An adjuster builds it from a small set of inputs: the police or incident report and any citations noted in it, the statements given by the parties and any witnesses, photographs of the scene and the damage, the physical evidence of impact points and positions, and the traffic or premises rules that apply to the situation. Those inputs are read against the insurer’s own internal guidance about how similar scenarios are usually allocated.

None of that is measurement. It is interpretation of an incomplete record, performed by someone whose employer benefits when the number is higher. That does not make adjusters dishonest; most are applying a familiar framework to a thin file. It does mean the number carries the shape of the file it was built from.

Which leads to the most actionable insight in this article. If the percentage is built from the record, then the record is the lever. A file containing clear photographs, a coherent written sequence, and a witness who confirms it produces a different starting percentage than a file containing one ambiguous report. The allocation is downstream of the evidence, and evidence is something a claimant can still add.

How adjusters assign fault in practice

In practice, most allocations start from a pattern rather than from first principles. Certain scenarios carry conventional expectations: rear impacts, left turns across traffic, lane changes, pedestrians outside crossings, spills in a store aisle. An adjuster recognizes the scenario, reaches for the conventional allocation, and then adjusts for whatever specific facts the file makes unavoidable.

This is why opening percentages so often land on round numbers. Twenty, twenty-five, thirty and fifty are the vocabulary of pattern-matching, not of calculation. A figure like 27 percent would imply an analysis that was not performed.

It is also why a scenario framing can be more consequential than any single fact. If the file frames your case as a left turn across traffic, you inherit the conventional allocation for left turns and then argue downward from it. If the file frames the same event as a speeding vehicle entering an intersection, the starting point is different. Part of what an effective response does is contest the frame rather than only the number.

Our explainer on how to deal with an insurance adjuster covers the conversational side of this, including recorded statements, which is where scenario framings are most often established without the claimant noticing.

How much of a fault percentage is negotiation, not science

It is worth saying plainly, because claimants routinely treat an assigned percentage as a finding rather than an offer. Outside of a courtroom, a fault percentage is a negotiating position. It is proposed by one party, it can be disputed by the other, and it settles where the evidence and the bargaining leave it.

Two honest qualifications belong alongside that. First, some allocations are well supported and will not move much, because the physical evidence and the applicable rules genuinely point one way. Arguing a clearly supported percentage down to zero is not a strategy. Second, the negotiability of the percentage is not unlimited: it is bounded by what a decision maker would plausibly do with the same facts, since both sides are ultimately bargaining in the shadow of that.

Within those bounds, though, there is real room, and the room is largest where the file is thinnest. An allocation built on an ambiguous report and two conflicting statements is soft. An allocation built on unambiguous physical evidence is not.

The practical posture, then, is neither deference nor outrage. Ask what facts support the number, supply facts that support a different one, and treat the exchange the way our explainer on negotiating an injury settlement treats the damages conversation: as an argument to be documented rather than a ruling to be accepted.

The evidence that actually moves the number

Not all evidence is equally useful in a fault argument. The material that reliably moves a percentage tends to share one quality: it was created close to the event and does not depend on anyone’s memory.

• Scene photographs taken immediately. Vehicle positions, skid marks, sight lines, signage, the condition of a walkway, the lighting. These decay within minutes and cannot be recreated later.
• The incident or police report. Not decisive on its own, but it establishes the official framing, and correcting an error in it early is far easier than contradicting it later.
• Independent witnesses. A neutral account is disproportionately persuasive because neither side chose the witness. Contact details collected at the scene are worth more than a detailed statement you write yourself a week later.
• Objective recordings. Dashboard cameras, doorbell or business surveillance, and vehicle data where it exists. Surveillance is frequently overwritten within days, so a prompt written request matters.
• A contemporaneous written sequence. Your own account, written the same day, in plain chronological order, before anyone has proposed a framing to you.
• The physical damage itself. Impact points and damage patterns constrain the possible sequences of events, sometimes decisively.

Our explainer on documenting an injury claim covers the collection habit in detail. The connection to this article is direct: documentation is usually discussed as a way to prove damages, but it does at least as much work on the fault side, and the fault side is where a percentage of the entire claim is decided.

Where the fault reduction lands in the settlement math

It helps to see where the reduction sits relative to the rest of the claim. The bar below splits the same illustrative $32,000 valuation at a 30 percent fault share, showing what the claimant keeps of each half and what the fault share removes.

The chart carries a point that surprises many claimants: the fault reduction does not spare your receipts. It is applied to the whole valuation, so a documented medical bill is reduced by your fault share exactly as the estimated pain-and-suffering figure is. There is no protected floor of hard costs.

That has a strategic consequence. Improving your documentation of damages raises the pre-fault number, but a fault share then takes its cut of the larger figure too. Both levers matter, and neither substitutes for the other. Try the interaction yourself with our settlement range estimator and the companion on this page.

Shared fault with more than one defendant

Real accidents are not always two-party events. A crash can involve several vehicles, a poorly maintained road, and a commercial operator. A fall can involve a property owner, a tenant, and a contractor who did the work badly.

When that happens, the allocation exercise expands rather than changes. Responsibility is divided across everyone involved, including the injured person, and the shares are meant to account for the whole of the incident. A claimant might carry 20 percent while two defendants carry 50 and 30.

The complication is not the arithmetic, which stays simple. It is collection. Each defendant typically has its own insurer, its own coverage limits, and its own incentive to argue that a different defendant deserves a larger share. Defendants blaming each other can help a claimant by keeping the claimant’s own share small, or hurt by delaying resolution for months while they fight.

Multi-party claims also tend to be exactly the claims where the damages are largest, since more parties usually means a more serious event. Our explainer on truck accident claims works through one common version of this, where a driver, a carrier, and a maintenance provider can all be in the frame at once.

Joint and several liability, in plain terms

Once several defendants share fault, a further question appears: can you collect the whole of the defendants’ share from any one of them, or only each one’s own portion?

Jurisdictions answer differently, and some answer differently depending on how large a given defendant’s share is or what type of damages are involved. Under a joint and several approach, a claimant may pursue the full amount from one responsible party, leaving that party to seek contribution from the others. Under a several-only approach, each defendant is responsible for its own percentage and no more.

The practical difference shows up when one defendant has no money or no insurance. Under a joint and several approach, a solvent defendant may effectively cover the shortfall. Under a several-only approach, the uncollectible share is simply lost to the claimant.

This is a genuinely technical area where the details vary and matter, and it is not something to work out from a general article. If your claim involves multiple responsible parties and at least one of them looks thinly insured, that combination is a strong reason to get a licensed attorney in your state to explain how the local rule allocates the risk of an empty pocket.

Comparative fault and the adjuster’s opening offer

Because a fault share is applied to the entire valuation, it is the most efficient tool an insurer has for reducing an offer. Arguing that your medical treatment was excessive requires engaging with clinical records. Arguing that you were 30 percent responsible requires one sentence and removes 30 percent of everything.

That efficiency explains a pattern claimants notice. Fault is often raised early, before damages are fully documented, sometimes in the very first substantive conversation. Raising it early does two things for the insurer: it anchors a percentage before the claimant has assembled a counter-record, and it may prompt an unguarded admission while events are still being described casually.

The corresponding discipline is to separate the two conversations in your own mind. What happened is one topic. What it cost is another. Answer the first from your written contemporaneous account rather than from memory under pressure, and resist the natural conversational instinct to be accommodating about a sequence you have not reconstructed carefully.

Our explainer on whether to accept a first settlement offer is relevant here, because an early offer that seems low relative to your bills has often had an unstated fault reduction built into it already.

Common ways claimants hand over fault they do not owe

Most of the fault percentage that claimants concede is conceded accidentally, in small conversational moves that feel like ordinary decency.

• Apologizing at the scene. Saying sorry is a human reflex that is easily recorded as an admission. Check on people and exchange information without characterizing the cause.
• Speculating about what happened. Phrases like I probably should have and I might not have are guesses, but they enter the file as statements against your own interest.
• Giving an early recorded statement. A recorded account given before you have reconstructed the sequence locks in details you may later realize were wrong.
• Accepting the framing in a question. When an adjuster asks how fast you were going when you pulled out, the framing is embedded in the question. Answer the facts, not the framing.
• Agreeing with the report. An incident report can contain errors of position, direction, or sequence. Read it and pursue a correction rather than treating it as settled.
• Filling gaps with confidence. Not remembering is an acceptable and accurate answer. Inventing a plausible detail to seem cooperative is how imagined facts become permanent ones.

None of this counsels evasiveness or dishonesty, which are both damaging and wrong. It counsels precision. Say what you know, decline to guess at what you do not, and keep your account consistent with the contemporaneous record you made the same day.

Comparative negligence beyond car crashes

Comparative fault is not a traffic doctrine. It runs through injury claims generally, and the arguments simply change shape with the setting.

In premises cases the recurring question is whether a hazard was open and obvious and whether the visitor was paying reasonable attention, so an insurer’s fault argument often concerns distraction, footwear, or ignoring a marked warning. Our explainers on premises liability and on slip and fall settlement values sit alongside this one for that reason.

In animal-related claims the argument frequently concerns provocation or whether the injured person had permission to be where they were, though the underlying liability rules for animals vary considerably between jurisdictions.

In vehicle claims involving motorcycles, a distinct problem appears: the conventional expectations that adjusters pattern-match from can carry assumptions about rider behavior that the specific facts do not support, which is one theme of our explainer on motorcycle accident settlements.

The common thread is that the fault argument is always an argument about the reasonableness of your own conduct in the moment, and it is always answered with evidence about what that moment actually contained.

What comparative fault does not change

It is as useful to know the limits of the doctrine as its reach.

A fault share does not change what your injury was. It does not reduce your medical bills, shorten your recovery, or diminish what you experienced. It reduces what the claim collects, which is a different thing, and it is worth keeping that distinction because claimants sometimes internalize a percentage as a judgment on themselves rather than an allocation exercise.

It also does not change the other adjustments that apply to a claim. Policy limits still cap what is collectible, liens and subrogation claims still come out of the recovery, and any attorney fee applies on its own terms. A fault reduction stacks with all of those rather than replacing any of them, which is why a gross valuation and a net recovery can differ dramatically.

And it does not change deadlines. The time limit for bringing a claim runs regardless of how the fault conversation is going, and a fault dispute that drags on is not a reason to let a filing deadline approach unexamined. Our explainer on how long you have to file an injury claim covers that clock, which is entirely independent of this one.

When a fault dispute is a reason to call a lawyer

Plenty of small, clear claims are handled well without representation. A contested fault percentage is one of the clearest signals that a claim has left that category.

Several situations deserve a professional opinion rather than another round of self-advocacy. When the assigned percentage sits anywhere near a modified rule’s threshold, since a few points decide the whole claim. When there is any possibility a contributory rule applies, since the downside is total. When multiple parties share responsibility and the collection rules become relevant. When the injury is serious or permanent, because the percentage is then applied to a large number and a ten point argument is worth a great deal.

Add one more: when the adjuster will not explain the percentage in writing with reference to specific facts. That refusal is itself information about how well supported the number is.

Consultations with injury attorneys are commonly offered without charge, and fee arrangements in this area are typically contingent, so the cost of an opinion is usually low. Our explainers on finding a personal injury lawyer and on whether you need one after a crash cover how to evaluate that step.

Questions worth asking about your own fault percentage

If a percentage has been assigned to you, a short list of questions turns a vague sense of unfairness into a specific conversation.

• What specific facts support this percentage, in writing? A number that cannot be tied to identifiable facts is the softest kind.
• What rule governs my claim, and where is the threshold? This determines whether you are arguing about money or about existence, and it is a question for a licensed attorney in your state.
• What is each point worth on my claim? Divide your pre-fault valuation by 100. On the illustrative $32,000 claim it is $320, and knowing your own figure tells you how much effort the argument justifies.
• What evidence exists that I have not yet supplied? Surveillance requests, witness contacts, photographs on someone else’s phone, a correction to the incident report.
• Is any of the assigned share based on the framing rather than the facts? Scenario labels carry conventional allocations with them.
• Has anything I said been treated as an admission? If so, address it directly with the contemporaneous record rather than hoping it is forgotten.

None of these questions requires legal training to ask. The answers frequently reveal that a percentage presented as settled is resting on very little.

Putting the fault number into your own estimate

Bringing this back to valuation, the practical sequence is to build the claim first and apply the fault share last. Total your documented economic damages, estimate the non-economic portion using whichever method your facts support, arrive at a pre-fault figure, and only then apply a fault percentage to the whole of it.

Doing it in that order keeps two arguments separate that insurers benefit from blending. If you start from a fault-reduced number, you have accepted the percentage before you have contested it, and every subsequent conversation about damages happens inside a frame you never agreed to.

It also gives you a clean way to evaluate an offer. If an offer is 40 percent below your pre-fault estimate, either the insurer disagrees with your damages, or it is applying a substantial fault share, or both. Asking which one, specifically, converts a disappointing number into a diagnosable one.

The companion on this page runs that sequence live: bills and wages, a severity multiplier, a fault percentage, and a rule selection, producing an illustrative reduced figure and the value of each point. Our accident settlement explainer applies the same framework to crash claims specifically.

The bottom line

Comparative negligence is the reason two people with identical injuries can walk away with very different amounts. It converts responsibility into a percentage, subtracts that percentage from the entire value of a claim, and under some rules eliminates the claim altogether once the percentage crosses a threshold.

Three things follow from that. The number is consequential, since on an illustrative $32,000 claim each point is worth $320 and a threshold can be worth everything. The number is not a measurement, since it is assembled by an interested party from an incomplete record and expressed in round figures that reveal the pattern-matching behind them. And the number is answerable, since it moves in response to photographs, witnesses, recordings, and a contemporaneous account, all of which are things a claimant can still supply.

What no article can supply is which rule governs your claim, where any threshold sits, or how the courts where you are have read it. Those are the facts that decide whether a fault dispute is a negotiation about money or a fight over whether you have a claim at all, and they belong with a licensed attorney in your state.

Written by the TortWise editorial team as general information about how shared-fault rules operate, and nothing more than that. It is not legal advice, it does not create an attorney-client relationship, and it deliberately declines to say which fault rule applies in any particular state, because those rules are changed by legislatures and reinterpreted by courts and a confident wrong answer here would cost a reader far more than a cautious one. Every dollar amount, multiplier, and fault percentage above was invented to make arithmetic visible, never to forecast an outcome, and no real claim resolves because a chart said it should. If a percentage has been put to you, if your share sits anywhere near a threshold, if several parties are involved, or if your injury is serious or lasting, stop calculating and put your own facts in front of a licensed attorney where your claim sits.

Edited by Hamza Hai, MBA · Editor

Hamza Hai is the editor of TortWise. She holds an MBA and reviews the site's articles against our editorial standards, checking that every figure is labelled for what it is, that nothing is presented as verified fact without a source the reader can check, and that the writing stays useful to a non-specialist.

How we research, write and review · LinkedIn