This transcript was auto-populated.
Transcript:
00:03
In California, we use something called pure comparative negligence, which means that you slice fault like it was a pizza. If it’s determined that you’re 30% to blame, you can still pocket the other 70%. Even if you were 99% to blame, you could still get that other 1%
00:22
that is owed to you. So, for example, if you were injured in a car accident, you had medical bills, lost income, and pain and suffering that were $100,000, and it was pretty clear that you were 50% to blame for what happened, you’d still be able to recover $50,000. The percentage,
00:40
however, isn’t carved in stone. It’s just a negotiation and and it’s an opening bid. adjusters inflate your share to shrink how much they pay you and then I try to make your share as low as possible so you get as much compensation as possible. Obviously the the best thing and the best way to do
00:59
that is to have good evidence. If you have photos, witnesses or videos showing that you weren’t at fault, you could push that number down significantly. Also, that is why you have to watch what you say and watch your words. Even a casual, I’m sorry, I was distracted or I
01:16
wasn’t looking can morph into a a greater percentage of liability stacked against you. So stick to what happened and not why until you’ve talked to a lawyer. Obviously, as a personal injury attorney, my job is pretty simple. I try to get your fault percentage as low as
01:32
possible and get your damages as high as possible so you get as big of a piece of the pizza as possible.