Fact-Checked: Why Trust Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima Being based in southwest Ohio, our law firm frequently handles personal injury cases in both Ohio and Kentucky. Given the geographical proximity of these two states, it would be easy to assume that an injury case in one would be just like an injury case in the other. In reality, Kentucky and Ohio have some big differences when it comes to personal injury law that can have a major impact on case value and even our decision whether to accept a client’s case to begin with.
This post is the first in a series focusing on the differences between Ohio and Kentucky personal injury law. This first installment will focus on the pure comparative fault system in Kentucky and the modified comparative fault system in Ohio—and explain how these rules could affect your personal injury case, depending on where the case is filed.
What is Comparative Fault?
In personal injury cases, comparative fault means that if the injured person (plaintiff) shares some level of responsibility or fault for causing the injury, their recovery is reduced according to their percentage of fault in causing the harm. Both Kentucky and Ohio follow variations of the comparative fault rule, but they apply it very differently.
Pure Comparative Fault Under Kentucky Law
In Kentucky, the law operates under pure comparative fault. This means that even if the plaintiff is primarily responsible for an accident, or over 50% at fault, they may still be entitled to compensation, though the amount will be reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, let’s say a plaintiff was injured in a car crash, and the jury finds that plaintiff was 70% at fault and the other driver is just 30% at fault. Under Kentucky’s pure comparative fault system, the plaintiff could still recover, but their total damages would be reduced by their 70% fault. So, if the jury were to find that the injury caused $100,000 in damages, the plaintiff would receive 30% of that amount, or $30,000, despite having the majority of the fault.
In Kentucky, even if a plaintiff is 99% at fault, and the defendant is only 1% at fault, the plaintiff still recovers 1% of their damages.
This system allows us more flexibility in taking a client’s case, as they can recover some compensation even if they wind up being found significantly responsible for their injury. It also may encourage the defendant to be more willing to settle, knowing that they may be required to pay damages even if they believe the plaintiff bears a greater share of the blame.
Modified Comparative Fault Under Ohio Law
Ohio, on the other hand, follows a modified comparative fault rule, which differs in terms of the threshold at which a plaintiff can recover damages. Under Ohio law, a plaintiff is only entitled to compensation if their degree of fault is less than the combined fault of every other party. In other words, if a plaintiff is found to be 51% or more at fault in causing or contributing to their injury, he or she will be barred from recovering any damages at all. If the plaintiff is 50% or less at fault, they can recover damages, but the amount will be reduced by their percentage of fault.
For example, if a jury finds that an injury is worth $100,000, and the plaintiff in Ohio is 30% at fault, that person would still recover $70,000 (the total damages minus their percentage of fault). However, even if the jury found $100,000 in damages, if they also find that the plaintiff was 51% or more at fault, the recovery would be reduced to zero.
How This May Affect Your Personal Injury Case
Since Kentucky’s pure comparative fault rules offer more leeway for plaintiffs with a potentially high degree of fault, we often are able to take cases there that we would, unfortunately, have to turn away if it had to be filed in Ohio.
Regardless of whether your case is venued in Kentucky of Ohio, it’s essential to present a strong case for why the other party was responsible for your injury. In either state, if you are found to be partially at fault, your recovery will be reduced accordingly. Having an experienced attorney who understands the nuances of each state’s laws is essential for securing the best possible outcome. The injury attorneys at Rittgers Rittgers & Nakajima are knowledgeable and well-versed in both states’ legal frameworks and can help you navigate the complexities of your case.