https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lrXn5VrtUA Car Accident Lawsuits Modified comparative negligence The modified comparative negligence rule in the case of car accidents is a legal concept that permits partial recovery of damages even if other party was partially at the fault. This concept was designed to ensure that the process is more fair for both sides. If a person is partially at fault for an accident, the court could reduce the amount of their financial compensation in order to reflect their part in the accident. Pure comparative negligence is used in certain states. It is used to determine who's actions were most responsible for the accident. In this scenario one could be at least 50% responsible for an accident and receive only $1,000 from the other party. is commonly known as the 50 rule. Modified comparative negligence rules permit the person to collect damages from the other driver if they were at fault for an accident. Pure comparative negligence doesn't have this rule, but it does allow individuals to collect damages from the other driver's insurance company in the event that they were responsible for the accident. In New York, for example it is possible to claim pure comparative negligence when a driver violates the stop sign. However, the other driver was not able to avoid the accident. The evidence of an accident will be used to determine the reason for action during the trial. Lawyers and insurance companies will examine a variety of elements to determine fault. Attorneys and insurance companies may look into inebriation or weather conditions, as well as other factors that may have an impact on the accident. These factors may even affect the amount of damages a plaintiff is entitled to from an insurance company. Pure contributory negligence Pure contributory negligence in lawsuits involving car accidents is when one or more of the participants did not exercise reasonable care and attention while driving their vehicles. This is more difficult to prove