← Basil BriefBETA ArticlesSources

How does comparative fault reduce a damages award in California?

California · updated 2026-08-31 · 620 words · 6 authorities cited

In California, comparative fault reduces a plaintiff's damages award proportionally to their assigned percentage of responsibility for the harm 1. If a plaintiff's negligence combined with a defendant's conduct to cause harm, the total damages are first determined, and then reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of responsibility 1. This principle applies across various tort claims, including negligence and strict liability.

The rule

If a plaintiff's negligence combined with a defendant's conduct in causing the plaintiff's harm, the total damages are reduced by the percentage of responsibility attributed to the plaintiff 1.

How it applies

To apply comparative fault, the jury first decides the total amount of the plaintiff's damages 1. Then, the jury determines the percentage of responsibility for the damages attributable to the plaintiff and the defendant 1. The total damages are then reduced by the percentage of responsibility assigned to the plaintiff 1. This reduced amount is the final damage award 1.

A defendant claiming comparative fault must prove two elements:

  1. The plaintiff was negligent 3.
  2. The plaintiff's negligence was a substantial factor in causing their harm 3.

If these elements are proven, the plaintiff's damages are reduced by the determined percentage of the plaintiff's responsibility 3. The court calculates the actual reduction 3. This rule also applies if the decedent's negligence contributed to their death; the plaintiff's damages are reduced by the percentage of the decedent's responsibility 4.

In cases involving strict liability, a defendant may claim that the negligence or fault of a third person also contributed to the plaintiff's harm 2. To succeed on this claim, the defendant must prove that the third person negligently modified the product or was otherwise negligent or at fault, and that this negligence or fault was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm 2. If the negligence or fault of more than one person—including the defendant, the plaintiff, and any nonparty tortfeasors—was a substantial factor in causing the harm, the jury must assign percentages of responsibility to each person, totaling 100 percent 2. When determining the total amount of damages, the jury should not consider any person's assigned percentage of responsibility 2.

Similarly, in general negligence cases, a defendant may claim that the negligence or fault of nonparty tortfeasors contributed to the plaintiff's harm 7. The defendant must prove that the nonparty tortfeasor was negligent or at fault, and that this negligence or fault was a substantial factor in causing the plaintiff's harm 7. If multiple parties are at fault, including the defendant, plaintiff, and nonparty tortfeasors, the jury assigns percentages of responsibility to each, totaling 100 percent 7. The total damages are determined separately, without considering individual percentages of responsibility 7.

When a jury determines damages, it must decide how much money will reasonably compensate the plaintiff for the harm if the defendant's wrongful conduct was a substantial factor in causing that harm 8. This compensation is called "damages" 8. The amount of damages must include an award for each item of harm caused by the defendant's wrongful conduct, even if the harm was not anticipated 8. The plaintiff does not need to prove the exact amount of damages, but the jury must not speculate or guess 8.

What this does not cover

The provided sources do not detail how comparative fault applies to intentional torts or specific statutory claims. They also do not address the procedural aspects of how comparative fault is pleaded or proven beyond the general requirements for jury instructions. The sources do not distinguish between pure and modified comparative fault systems, though the instructions imply a pure comparative fault system where a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, regardless of how high that percentage is.

Authorities cited

1. CACI 3960

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

2. CACI 1207B

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

3. CACI 405

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

4. CACI 407

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

5. CACI 406

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

6. CACI 3901

Cited in this article. Open Basil Brief to read the passage in full.

Check this before you rely on it. Basil Brief has no citator, so it cannot tell you whether an authority has since been limited or overruled. It answers only from the California sources listed on the sources page, as they stood on 2026-08-31. Read the authority yourself before you cite it.

Ask a follow-up

This page is one answer. Put your own facts to the same corpus and get the passages back with it.

Ask Basil Brief