# California Comparative Fault After a Car Accident

Canonical: https://sanjosecacaraccidentlawyer.com/california-law/comparative-fault/

Reviewed by Andrew Ronald Gillin; reviewed 2026-11-05.

California comparative fault can allow a person to pursue a negligence claim even when that person shares some blame. Their share can reduce damages.

## Comparative fault: a hypothetical reduction

### $100,000 in damages

Assume this is the proved harm in a simple case with one defendant.

### 20% assigned to you

For this made-up example, reduce the damages by $20,000.

### $80,000 after the reduction

Other legal limits, fees, insurance and collection issues remain separate.

Hypothetical numbers to explain a rule, not the value of a real claim.

## How California divides fault after a car accident

Li v. Yellow Cab Co. explains California’s move from an all-or-nothing negligence rule to comparative fault. The evidence, not a universal crash chart, supports the share of fault. Separate rules can apply when several defendants are responsible or different kinds of damages are involved.



Sources: [Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/13/804.html); [Civil Code section 1714](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1714.)

## A hypothetical percentage-of-fault example

For a made-up example with one defendant, suppose damages are $100,000 and the injured person has 20% of the fault. A 20% reduction leaves $80,000 before other limits or deductions. This illustrates arithmetic, not a case estimate or a promise of collection.



Sources: [Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/13/804.html); [Civil Code section 1714](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1714.)

## Why a traffic violation does not answer every question

For a useful review, keep the following information together. You do not need to enter it on this website.

- The actual policy, bill, report, or notice involved.
- Dates and facts that could change which rule applies.
- The questions you want an attorney to answer before you take a step.

Sources: [Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/13/804.html)

## Court decisions about california comparative fault after a car accident

### Li v. Yellow Cab Co.

(1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, pp. 827–829. A person can share fault and still have a negligence claim. Their share of blame can reduce the recovery.

Limits: This does not set anyone’s fault percentage. Other limits and defenses can still matter.

[Read the opinion](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/13/804.html)

### DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc.

(1992) 2 Cal.4th 593, pp. 600–604. Each defendant’s share of noneconomic harm was tied to its share of fault. That type of harm includes pain.

Limits: Financial losses follow different rules. The case also involved an employer that could not be sued for the same harm.

[Read the opinion](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/2/593.html)

## Related resources

- [San Jose Rear-End Collisions: Fault, Evidence, and Legal Help](https://sanjosecacaraccidentlawyer.com/rear-end-collisions/)
- [San Jose Intersection Crashes: Left Turns, Red Lights, and Fault](https://sanjosecacaraccidentlawyer.com/intersection-crashes/)
- [California Crash Insurance Coverage Explainer](https://sanjosecacaraccidentlawyer.com/tools/coverage-explainer/)

## Legal and agency sources

- [Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/13/804.html)
- [Civil Code section 1714](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CIV&sectionNum=1714.)
- [DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc. (1992) 2 Cal.4th 593](https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/4th/2/593.html)

General information, not legal advice. Examples are hypothetical.