California Fault Law Explained: Pure Comparative Negligence and the No-Fault Myth

California is a fault state, not a no-fault state, and its pure comparative negligence rule lets an injured driver recover money even after being found 99% at fault. Lem Garcia of Lem Garcia Law breaks down how fault gets decided after a West Covina crash, how adjusters use shared blame to shrink a settlement, and the deadlines that can end a case before it starts. Questions answered: Is California a no-fault state for car accidents? What is California's pure comparative negligence rule? Can you still recover money if you were 99% at fault for a crash? How do insurance adjusters use shared fault to lower a settlement? What is California's statute of limitations for a car accident lawsuit? Topics covered: pure comparative negligence, at-fault driver liability, CHP and West Covina PD police reports, dashcam and witness evidence, rear-end and T-bone crash fault, drunk and distracted driving liability, comparative-fault insurance tactics, recorded statements, special and general damages, uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage, the two-year statute of limitations, and the six-month government claim deadline. California law referenced in this episode: pure comparative negligence (Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 1975), two-year personal injury statute of limitations (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Section 335.1), three-year property damage deadline (CCP Section 338), and the six-month government claim deadline for public-entity defendants. Notable from this episode: Lem Garcia on the 99% fault myth: "Believe it or not, the answer is yes. You can still recover money, even a good amount of money if you were 99% at fault for the crash." Lem Garcia on deadlines: "Two years sounds like a long time, until it isn't." Lem Garcia Law - West Covina, CA - 12 years, seven-figure recoveries, no recovery/no fee, fee never exceeds recovery, lemgarcialaw.com | (626) 337-1111 | West Covina, CA | Oceanside, CA #CaliforniaComparativeNegligence #NoFaultMyth #WestCovinaCarAccidentLawyer #LemGarciaLaw #SanGabrielValleyPI #CaliforniaStatuteOfLimitations The information in this episode is general California legal information, not legal advice for your specific situation. For advice on your case, contact Lem Garcia Law at (626) 337-1111 for a free consultation. Chapters 00:00:00 California Fault Law and the No-Fault Myth Most Drivers Get Wrong 00:00:55 Is California a No-Fault State? Pure Comparative Negligence Rule 00:02:34 What Does Fault Mean in a California Car Accident Claim? 00:03:44 What Is California's Pure Comparative Negligence Rule? 00:05:25 Can You Recover If You're 99% at Fault? California Law Says Yes 00:07:16 How Is California Different From 51% Bar Rule States? 00:08:29 How Does Fault Get Decided After a Crash on the I-10 or SR-60? 00:10:29 Does a CHP Police Report Decide Fault in a West Covina Crash? 00:11:56 CHP, West Covina PD, or LASD: Who Responds to Your Crash? 00:13:08 What Evidence Proves Fault When Drivers Disagree in California? 00:14:36 Does a Rear-End or T-Bone Crash Decide Fault Automatically? 00:15:57 Does a Drunk or Distracted Driver Get 100% Fault in California? 00:18:09 How Do Insurance Adjusters Use Fault to Cut Your Payout? 00:19:37 Should You Give a Recorded Statement in a California Claim? 00:21:35 How Does Your Fault Percentage Reduce a California Settlement? 00:23:34 What Are Special and General Damages in a California Injury Claim? 00:25:39 What If the At-Fault Driver Has No Insurance? UM/UIM Coverage 00:28:26 Why Do Medical Records Matter in a California Fault Dispute? 00:30:46 What Is California's Statute of Limitations for Car Accidents? 00:32:19 Does a Government Vehicle Crash Shorten California's Filing Deadline? 00:34:03 Where Does a West Covina Car Accident Case Get Filed? 00:35:46 The One Rule to Remember About Fault After a California Crash