Minnesota Negligence Law In Car Accidents

Minnesota’s Comparative Negligence Law In Car Accidents

Fault Is The Basis Of Any Personal Injury Claim

In Minnesota, for any person who has been injured to collect in any personal injury case, it is necessary to prove that the party that caused to injury was at fault. Under Minnesota law, fault can be proven by proof of negligence or strict liability.

Fault Can Be Negligence Or Strict Liability

Negligence is defined as “doing what a reasonable person would not do” or “failing to do what a reasonable person would do”. The first is called commission (committing an act that shouldn’t be done, such as speeding in a car). The second is called omission (omitting to do what a person should do, such as failing to stop at a stop sign).

Strict liability is defined as fault which is imposed on a person regardless of negligence. An example is the Minnesota Dog Bite law where the owner of the dog is at fault for any attack by the dog, even if the owner had no reason to believe that the dog was dangerous and no other reason to think that the dog might do some damage.

An Injured Person Can Collect Even If Partially At Fault

In many cases, there is a claim that the party that is seeking was also at fault. Under Minnesota law, the injured person can still collect if that person is equal to or less at fault than the party against whom the claim is being made.

The Injured Person’s Fault Is Called Contributory Negligence

The fault of the party seeking damages (the Plaintiff) is called “contributory negligence”.

Comparative Negligence Is When The Jury Apportions (Splits) The Fault Between The Parties

When the jury determines that the Defendant was negligent and also determines that the Plaintiff was also negligent, the jury is then asked to determine the “comparative fault” of both parties. This decision is called the “comparative fault” decision because the jury is comparing the fault of the respective parties. The jury is asked to determine the percentage of fault between the two (or more) parties.

Liability Will Be Determined Between The Parties On The Basis Of The Comparative Negligence Decision Of The Jury

Under Minnesota law, if the Plaintiff’s fault is greater than that of the Defendant, the Plaintiff is not allowed to collect damages. If the Defendants’ fault is greater or equal to that of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is allowed to collect, but the amount that the Plaintiff can (For example, if the Defendant is found to be 70% at fault and the Plaintiff 30% at fault and the damages are determined by the jury to be $50,000.00, the Plaintiff will then collect $35,000.00.)

In some cases, there will be more than one Defendant. In that event, the fault of all three parties is compared and the Plaintiff can only recover against any Defendant whose comparative fault is equally or greater. (Note: the result can be complicated in the case of multiple parties. The advice of an experienced personal injury lawyer should be consulted to explain the outcome of those cases.

Is Comparative Fault the Same as Comparative Negligence?

Comparative fault and comparative negligence are closely related concepts in personal injury law but are not entirely the same. Both terms are used to describe how liability is distributed when multiple parties are at fault in an accident. Their application can affect how a case is argued and how damages are awarded.

Comparative fault is a broader term for the legal doctrine that affects the amount of compensation based on the degree of fault. In Minnesota, this principle is applied under the state’s “modified comparative fault” rule (Minnesota Statute Section 604.01).

Under this rule, if a plaintiff is partially at fault, their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is 5% at fault for an accident, their damages will be reduced by 5%. Importantly, if the plaintiff shares 50% or more of the fault, they are barred from recovering any damages.

On the other side, comparative negligence is specifically used to describe the plaintiff’s contribution to the accident through their negligence. This denotes failure to observe reasonable care, resulting in harm to another party.

As noted, comparative fault encompasses comparative negligence. It can also include other forms of fault, such as intentional misconduct or strict liability.

How Can You Prove Negligence in a Personal Injury Case?

Proving negligence in a personal injury case establishes liability for the injuries caused by the accident. In Minnesota, proving negligence involves showing clearly the following four key components:

• Duty of Care: You must establish that the defendant was legally obliged to act in a manner that would not cause harm to you. For example, drivers must prioritize safety when operating their vehicles.
• Breach of Duty: You have to prove a breach of duty on the part of the defendant. In a car accident, this might include texting while driving or any other distracting activity.
• Direct causation: You must prove that you would not have suffered injuries but for the defendant’s actions. This involves demonstrating that the injuries were a foreseeable result of the defendant’s breach.
• Damages: The plaintiff must show how they suffered actual harm because of the other party’s negligence.

To prove these elements, the plaintiff may need to collect evidence, including medical records, police reports, witness statements, and expert testimony. Maintaining meticulous records and statements that substantiate your claim is crucial, regardless of whether you choose to hire a lawyer. These documents can serve as invaluable evidence, strengthening your case and increasing your chances of a favorable outcome.

Why Hire a Minnesota Personal Injury Lawyer?

Hiring a Minnesota personal injury lawyer is highly advisable, especially in the face of the pain and suffering caused by the accident. Personal injury law, especially in the context of comparative negligence, can be complex. A Minnesota personal injury lawyer is well-versed in state laws and can interpret and apply them effectively to your case.

As mentioned earlier, proving negligence involves establishing duty, breach, causation, and damages. A lawyer knows how to collect and present evidence to prove these elements convincingly. They can even work with accident reconstruction experts to build a strong case.

Insurance companies often try to minimize payout claims due to your fault contribution. A lawyer can strategically argue to minimize your percentage of fault, thereby increasing the amount you can recover. They can also represent you in court if negotiations yield satisfactory compensation.

If you have a personal injury claim, consult a Minnesota injury attorney from Schmidt & Salita Law Firm as soon as possible. Contact us online or call (952) 473-4530 for a free consultation.