In the aftermath of a commercial truck accident, people often wonder about their legal options—particularly if they feel they were at least somewhat responsible for the incident. Can an injured Texas truck accident victim still sue if they were partly to blame for the crash?

Answer: Yes, a Texas truck accident victim or their family can still file a personal injury or wrongful death claim even if the victim may have been partly at fault for the accident.

This is possible because of how Texas law views liability. The Lone Star State determines responsibility for an accident using the modified comparative fault model. In this article we'll look more closely at that theory of liability and how it would apply to a Texas truck accident victim's potential case.

What Is Comparative Fault?

Most traffic collisions, particularly commercial ones, are more complex than they may seem from the outside. Blame can rarely be laid entirely at one person or the other's feet, as each driver and a number of additional factors might all have played roles. Comparative fault, also called comparative negligence, is the system by which many states' courts divide responsibility for an accident between its participants.

How Does Comparative Fault Work?

Comparative fault involves determining the percentage of fault for each party and factor involved in an accident. If the victim's attorney can show to a jury that the defendant or defendants were more responsible for the accident and the victim's injuries, the victim wins the case.

Texas uses a slightly different version of this model known as modified comparative fault, in which a victim's case wins only if they were 50% or less at fault for their accident. The following are some examples of that concept in action:

Example 1: Roy is driving east through an intersection with a green light when he glances at his phone to check an incoming text. At the same time, Gilbert tries to run a red light and drives an 18-wheeler north through the same intersection. The truck crashes into the passenger side of Roy's car and Roy suffers serious injuries.

Roy sues Gilbert and his employer for the damage done in the wreck. The company says that Roy was distracted by his phone and could otherwise have avoided the crash, but Roy's attorney argues that Gilbert running a red light and failing to yield the right-of-way was the main cause of the wreck. A jury ultimately agrees that Gilbert disobeying a traffic control was the primary factor; they conclude that he was 80% responsible for the crash and Roy was 20% responsible. Because Gilbert was found more than 50% at fault for Roy's injuries, Roy wins the case.

Example 2: Frank is driving a pickup south along the highway when a box falls out of his truck bed onto the road. He pulls the pickup onto the shoulder and gets out, then runs quickly into the road to retrieve the box. Unfortunately he misjudges how much time he has to get there and back, and he is fatally struck by a southbound box truck.

Frank's family believes the truck driver could have avoided him and makes a wrongful death claim against the driver and their employer. The family argues that the driver had sufficient time and room to take better evasive maneuvers, while the company's defense attorneys say Frank did not check carefully for oncoming traffic before running onto the highway—which as a rule is off-limits to pedestrians.

After hearing both sides' arguments, a jury finally decides that Frank was 65% at fault for the accident and the truck driver was 35% at fault. Because Frank was found to have been more than 50% responsible for his accident, his family loses the case.

How Comparative Fault Affects Compensation

Under comparative fault, the compensation awarded to a victim that wins their case will be reduced based on their perceived level of liability. The higher the assigned percentage of fault, the greater the reduction in compensation.

Using Texas' modified comparative fault theory, a victim who was 50% or more at fault would not be eligible to receive any compensation. Let's apply that to the previous examples:

Example 1: After Roy won the case against Gilbert and his employer, the jury determine that Roy's serious injuries were worth $500,000 in damages. However, because the jury also found that Roy was 20% at fault, the awarded damages are reduced by that 20%, or $100,000. Roy's awarded damages are then calculated to be $400,000.

Example 2: A jury determined that Frank was more than 50% liable for his accident. Whatever monetary value the jury might have assigned to the related damages is irrelevant, as Frank's family is barred from recovering any compensation.

Grossman Law Offices Can Help

To make a long story short, you should know that you certainly can sue after a truck accident even if you believe you were partially at fault. Your contribution to your injuries may actually be smaller than you think, but it may take careful investigation and clear proof to show what really happened. Without those, the defense will pile as much blame as they can on you. That will affect related legal negotiations and insurance settlements, so it's in their interest not to take more responsibility than they must.

That's why an experienced and knowledgeable truck accident attorney is such a valuable ally. The Texas lawyers at Grossman Law Offices have decades of experience helping the victims of all kinds of truck accidents, including those who believed they were partly responsible for one. If you were hurt or lost a loved one in a commercial truck accident, call Grossman Law any time for a free and confidential consultation.