Michigan has adopted a comparative fault system, so a plaintiff’s negligence can significantly affect the outcome of a premises liability case. If someone is injured due to another person’s claimed negligence, their ability to recover damages could be reduced or even eliminated based on their actions or inactions.

Understanding Comparative Fault

Comparative fault is a legal principle that allows a jury to allocate responsibility between the plaintiff and the defendant in a personal injury case.

The doctrine of comparative fault began gaining traction in the mid-20th century. The idea was to allow courts to more equitably apportion responsibility and ensure plaintiffs were not unfairly deprived of compensation due to minor contributions to their injuries.

By the 1980s and 1990s, most U.S. states had adopted some form of comparative fault doctrine, although the specifics of how fault is assigned and the impact on damages can vary widely. In Michigan, the jury’s allocation of responsibility can significantly affect the amount of damages you can recover. If you are injured due to someone else’s negligence, your actions or inactions could reduce your compensation.

Michigan’s 50% Rule

Michigan follows a modified comparative fault system, often called the “50% rule.” This means that if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for the accident, they cannot recover any non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering. However, the plaintiff may still be able to recover economic damages like medical bills and lost wages as long as the property owner shares some fault.

For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault for a car accident and the total non-economic damages are $100,000, they would only recover $80,000. In most cases, a jury determines the percentage of fault for each party involved in an accident. This process can be complex and involves careful consideration of evidence and testimony.

Common Scenarios and Comparative Fault

The idea of comparative fault can be applied across various personal injury cases. Here are some examples:

Car Accidents

• Distracted Driving: If a plaintiff is texting while driving and causes an accident, their negligence could substantially lower or negate their ability to recover damages.

• Speeding: Speeding can intensify the impact of an accident and may be considered a factor in comparative fault. For example, if a driver exceeds the speed limit on a wet road, loses control, and collides with another vehicle, their speeding could directly contribute to the accident’s severity, potentially reducing their liability based on their negligence.

• Failure to Wear a Seatbelt: Although seatbelt laws are primary and not contributory in Michigan, not wearing a seatbelt can affect the severity of injuries and might reduce the damages awarded.  However, a person’s comparative fault is capped at 5% if they are in the front seat and unbelted.

Slip and Fall Accidents

• Failing to Watch Where You’re Going: If someone is distracted and fails to notice a clear hazard, their recovery could be reduced or denied. For example, if a pedestrian is engrossed in their phone and trips over a clearly marked uneven pavement, their distraction could be seen as a contributing factor to the fall, potentially lowering their recovery from the property owner.

• Ignoring Warning Signs: Disregarding cautionary signs or barriers can also reduce a plaintiff’s claim. For example, if someone ignores barricades and warning signs at a construction site and slips or trips, their decision to ignore the warnings might be considered a factor in their injury.

• Wearing Inappropriate Footwear: Wearing unsuitable footwear can increase the risk of falling and may be considered a comparative fault. For example, suppose a person wearing flip-flops slips on a wet grocery store floor. In that case, the store might argue that the choice of footwear contributed to the accident, potentially reducing the recovery amount.

Intoxication

A Plaintiff’s intoxication can also play an important role in determining their own comparative fault.  This can be applied, not only in the car accident context, but also in premises liability claims.  Recently, a plaintiff claimed to have tripped and fallen due to an uneven, unmarked threshold while entering a bathroom at a bar.  The plaintiff claimed he only had one (1) beer that day.  ER records showed that the plaintiff’s BAC was .26; more than three (3) times the legal limit.  MCL 600.2955a(1) provides an absolute defense where the plaintiff’s own intoxication was 50% or more the cause of the injury.  A person is presumed to have an impaired ability to function when their BAC is above the legal limit.  We were successful in getting a plaintiff’s premises liability claim dismissed based upon the plaintiff’s own intoxication and a judge finding that his intoxication was 50% or more the cause of his injury.  

Key Implications for Insurance Providers

The 50% rule has significant implications for insurance providers in Michigan. Here are some key points to consider:

1. Reduced Liability: When a plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault, the defendant’s liability is significantly reduced or eliminated. This can lead to substantial savings for insurance companies.

2. Increased Defenses: The 50% rule gives insurance companies a strong defense strategy. Insurers can reduce or even avoid paying out large settlements or verdicts by identifying and highlighting the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

3. Complex Litigation: Determining fault in personal injury cases can be complex and often involves expert testimony. Insurance companies should be prepared for lengthy and costly litigation, especially in cases where the plaintiff’s negligence is a significant factor.

4. Settlement Negotiations: The 50% rule can influence settlement negotiations. Insurance companies may be able to negotiate more favorable settlements by emphasizing the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

Strategies for Insurance Providers

The 50% rule in Michigan significantly impacts personal injury cases by reducing or eliminating defendant liability when the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, resulting in potential savings for insurance companies. This rule provides a strong defense strategy, allowing insurers to minimize or avoid large settlements or verdicts by highlighting the plaintiff’s contributory negligence. However, determining fault can be complex and often involves expert testimony, leading to lengthy and costly litigation. The 50% rule can also influence settlement negotiations, enabling insurers to negotiate more favorable terms. 

Michigan’s 50% rule is a significant factor in personal injury cases. By understanding the implications of this rule and employing effective strategies, insurance providers can protect their interests and minimize liability.

It is essential to consult with an attorney for advice regarding your specific situation. For questions regarding Michigan’s comparative fault law, please contact Joseph Fazi.