What is a “comparative fault” argument in sports injury cases?

A "comparative fault" argument in sports injury cases occurs when both sides of a dispute claim the other is at fault. In other words, the argument is that the injured party (plaintiff) and the defendant had some responsibility for causing the injury. In California, a comparative fault argument could be used when both the plaintiff and defendant contributed to an accident that caused a sports injury. For example, if the plaintiff was not wearing the appropriate protective gear and the defendant failed to warn them of the risk of injury, both could be found to be at fault for the injury. Another example is when an opposing player makes contact with the plaintiff while the plaintiff is not paying attention. In this case, the plaintiff could be held partially responsible for their injury. In California, each party’s responsibility would be determined by a judge or jury, and they would assign a percentage of fault to each party. The amount of damages the plaintiff can receive will be reduced by the percentage of fault they are assigned. Ultimately, the goal of a comparative fault argument is to determine what role, if any, each party had in the injury.

Related FAQs

What is the “super-sport” doctrine in a sports injury case?
What is the difference between a “contract” sports injury case and a “tort” sports injury case?
What is the role of the “Medical Records Review” in a sports injury case?
What is “risk assessment” in sports injury cases?
Is there a time limit for filing a sports injury claim?
What are the legal defenses to a sports injury claim?
How is “fault” determined in sports injury cases?
What type of insurance coverage should I have for a sports injury?
What is the “principle of reasonable care” in sports injury cases?
What are the differences between a “negligent” and an “intentional” injury in a sports injury case?

What is a “comparative fault” argument in sports injury cases?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts