The amount of compensation in insurance settlements after vehicle accidents depends on many factors, including state laws. A Milwaukee Truck Accident Lawyer knows that it’s essential to factor in the amount of comparative negligence for which the victim was responsible, because Wisconsin regulations address this point. If an individual is confirmed to be completely innocent in the scenario, the settlement amount will be higher than if law enforcement determines this person holds some level of responsibility. If it turns out that that claimant was more than 50 percent responsible, he or she is not eligible for compensation.
This may sound harsh to the person dealing with the aftermath of a serious collision. Some states, however, have even more restrictive laws. A handful of states stipulate that if the person was responsible for any negligence at all in the incident, no compensation is owed. This is a concept known as contributory negligence. Most states that once had this type of law have rejected it in favor of something more reasonable. The majority of states now follow a rule known as modified comparative negligence, which is the one Wisconsin uses. In standard comparative negligence, a person can claim compensation even if he or she was more than 50 percent responsible for the incident, although the amount paid will be significantly lower.
What actions constitute contributed negligence or fault? Being distracted by an activity such as texting while driving is an example. Even if another driver ran a red light or made a left turn in front of an approaching vehicle, insurance representatives may justifiably find that the injured driver was partly to blame if he or she was reading a text message. The person might have been able to avoid the accident if paying closer attention.
Driving while under the influence of alcohol is another example of comparative negligence. Even if the driver was acting in an entirely safe manner and another person caused a collision, the factor of high blood alcohol content will be considered and likely found as a contributing factor. Again, slower reaction time and impaired judgment could have been the aspects that made the accident unavoidable.