Key Takeaways
- Kentucky uses pure comparative negligence for determining fault in accidents
- Injured parties can recover damages even if 99% at fault
- Recovery is reduced by the claimant's percentage of fault
- Pure comparative negligence is the most favorable system for plaintiffs
- Kentucky adopted pure comparative negligence in 1984, replacing contributory negligence
Kentucky Pure Comparative Negligence
Understanding Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence determines how damages are allocated when multiple parties share fault in an accident. Kentucky uses the most plaintiff-friendly version: pure comparative negligence.
Kentucky's Pure Comparative Negligence Rule
Legal Foundation
Kentucky's pure comparative negligence system was established by:
- Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 411.182
- Hilen v. Hays (1984) - Kentucky Supreme Court decision
- Replaced the harsh contributory negligence doctrine
How Pure Comparative Negligence Works
Under pure comparative negligence:
- Fault is apportioned by percentage to each party
- Damages are reduced by the claimant's percentage of fault
- Recovery is permitted even if plaintiff is more at fault than defendant
- No threshold bars recovery
Comparison of Negligence Systems
| System | Recovery Permitted If... |
|---|---|
| Contributory | 0% at fault (any fault bars recovery) |
| Modified (50% Bar) | 49% or less at fault |
| Modified (51% Bar) | 50% or less at fault |
| Pure Comparative | Any percentage, even 99% at fault |
Kentucky uses pure comparative negligence, the most favorable to plaintiffs.
Calculating Damages Under Pure Comparative Negligence
Basic Formula
Example Calculations
Scenario 1: Plaintiff 20% at fault
| Factor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Damages | $100,000 |
| Plaintiff's Fault | 20% |
| Recovery | $80,000 |
Scenario 2: Plaintiff 60% at fault
| Factor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Damages | $100,000 |
| Plaintiff's Fault | 60% |
| Recovery | $40,000 |
Scenario 3: Plaintiff 90% at fault
| Factor | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total Damages | $100,000 |
| Plaintiff's Fault | 90% |
| Recovery | $10,000 |
Key Point
In Kentucky, even a driver who is 99% at fault can still recover 1% of their damages from the other party.
Historical Context
Before 1984: Contributory Negligence
Before Hilen v. Hays:
- Kentucky followed contributory negligence
- Any fault by plaintiff completely barred recovery
- Harsh results for plaintiffs with minor fault
- Courts often manipulated facts to achieve fair results
Hilen v. Hays (1984)
The Kentucky Supreme Court:
- Adopted pure comparative negligence
- Recognized unfairness of contributory negligence
- Aligned with modern tort law principles
- Made Kentucky one of 12 pure comparative states
Implications for Auto Insurance
Claims Handling
Under pure comparative negligence:
| Situation | Effect on Claim |
|---|---|
| Both parties at fault | Both may have valid claims |
| Plaintiff mostly at fault | Still can recover some damages |
| Multiple defendants | Apportionment among all parties |
| Unclear fault | Investigation crucial |
Insurance Premiums
Pure comparative negligence can impact:
- Higher claim frequency (more people can recover)
- More complex claims handling
- Potential for overlapping claims
- Need for adequate liability coverage
Example: Two-Car Collision in Kentucky
Accident Scenario:
- Driver A runs red light
- Driver B was speeding
- Collision causes injuries to both
Fault Determination:
- Driver A: 70% at fault (ran red light)
- Driver B: 30% at fault (speeding)
Damages:
- Driver A's damages: $50,000
- Driver B's damages: $80,000
Recovery:
- Driver A can recover: $50,000 × 30% = $15,000
- Driver B can recover: $80,000 × 70% = $56,000
Practical Considerations
For Producers
When advising Kentucky clients:
- Explain that fault doesn't bar recovery
- Recommend adequate liability limits
- UM/UIM important even for "at-fault" drivers
- Document all accidents thoroughly
For Insureds
Important to understand:
- You may receive a claim even as the "injured" party
- Your damages may be reduced by your fault
- Keep detailed records of accidents
- Don't admit fault at accident scene
Exam Tip: Kentucky is one of only 12 states with pure comparative negligence. Remember that ANY percentage of fault allows recovery, unlike modified comparative states where recovery may be barred at 50% or 51% fault.
Under Kentucky's pure comparative negligence system, can a driver who is 75% at fault for an accident recover damages?
A Kentucky driver suffers $100,000 in damages and is found 40% at fault. How much can they recover under pure comparative negligence?
Which landmark Kentucky Supreme Court case established pure comparative negligence in Kentucky?