Normally, the person that has won a personal injury claim receives compensation from the individual that has been found at-fault. What if the 2 disputing parties share the blame? Then, who must pay compensation, and to whom should it be delivered?

Because the 2 parties share the blame, each of them has been found negligent, to some extent.

• Which of them was more careless and neglectful than the opposing party?
• How does a determination on each party’s negligence affect distribution of the compensation?

Method used for distribution of funds deserved by the victim depends on the fault principle used in the state where the dispute has originated, as per Personal Injury Lawyer in Ottawa. Some states follow the principle of comparative negligence.

–Certain states use the traditional interpretation of that principle. That means that the percentage of a given party’s contribution to an accident’s causative factors represents the percentage of the compensatory funds for which the same party should be held responsible.
–Other states use a modified interpretation of that traditional arrangement. That means that the distribution of funds reflects the extent of each party’s contribution to the causative factors, unless either of them has caused more than 50% of those particular factors. Any party that has contributed to more than 50% of the causative factors does not receive any compensation, regardless of the size of his or her injury.

A few states follow the principle of contributory negligence. That principle denies any money to the party that has made even the smallest contribution towards creation of an accident’s causative factors. In other words, it has harsh terms; that is why so few states continue to use it.

Who casts the deciding vote, when it comes time to distribute funds, according the proper state’s fault principle?

At one time, the insurance company declared the extent to which either of the disputing parties could be held accountable, for paying compensatory funds.

Today, that is no longer true. Now, the victim, claimant has some say in a determination of who should get hit with the at-fault charge. The rules have changed, because insurance companies used to place unreasonable expectations on the victim’s actions.

It is not reasonable to expect a driver that has been hit from the rear to put enough pressure on the brake, so that the impacted vehicle could not hit the one in front of it. Yet that was one of the actions that insurance companies use to expect from a rear-ended victim.

Today’s rules have eliminated the utilization of such unreasonable expectations. Insurers might elect to sell an uninsured motorist option to some policyholders. That would force the same insurer to pay for the damages that were caused by the rear-end collision.