COMPARATIVE FAULT REDUCTION WORKSHEET

Case Name: [________________________________]
Case/Claim Number: [________________________________]
Date of Incident: [__/__/____]
Date Prepared: [__/__/____]
Prepared By: [________________________________]

SECTION 1: JURISDICTIONAL RULES

State/Jurisdiction: [____]

Type of Comparative Fault System:

☐ Pure Comparative Negligence
- Plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault
- Recovery reduced by percentage of fault
- States: CA, FL, NY, AZ, KY, LA, MS, MO, NM, RI, SD, WA

☐ Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Bar)
- Plaintiff barred if 50% or more at fault
- States: AR, CO, GA, ID, KS, ME, NE, ND, OK, TN, UT, WV

☐ Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Bar)
- Plaintiff barred if 51% or more at fault
- States: CT, DE, HI, IL, IN, IA, MA, MI, MN, MT, NV, NH, NJ, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, VT, WI, WY

☐ Contributory Negligence (Complete Bar)
- Any plaintiff fault bars recovery entirely
- States: AL, DC, MD, NC, VA

☐ Slight/Gross Negligence (South Dakota)
- Plaintiff recovers only if negligence is "slight" compared to defendant's "gross" negligence

Statutory Citation:

[________________________________]

SECTION 2: PARTY IDENTIFICATION

Plaintiff(s):

Defendant(s):

Non-Party At Fault (if applicable):

SECTION 3: FAULT ANALYSIS BY PARTY

A. Plaintiff's Conduct

Allegations of Plaintiff Fault:

Factors Affecting Plaintiff Fault Assessment:

☐ Failure to use safety equipment
☐ Distraction (phone use, etc.)
☐ Intoxication/impairment
☐ Violation of law/regulation
☐ Failure to observe conditions
☐ Assumption of risk
☐ Failure to mitigate damages
☐ Prior knowledge of danger
☐ Other: [________________________________]

Estimated Plaintiff Fault Percentage:
Low Estimate: [____]%
Mid Estimate: [____]%
High Estimate: [____]%

B. Defendant 1: [________________________________]

Allegations of Negligent Conduct:

Estimated Fault Percentage:
Low: [____]% | Mid: [____]% | High: [____]%

C. Defendant 2: [________________________________]

Allegations of Negligent Conduct:

Estimated Fault Percentage:
Low: [____]% | Mid: [____]% | High: [____]%

D. Defendant 3: [________________________________]

Allegations of Negligent Conduct:

Estimated Fault Percentage:
Low: [____]% | Mid: [____]% | High: [____]%

E. Non-Party: [________________________________]

Allegations of Negligent Conduct:

Estimated Fault Percentage: [____]%

SECTION 4: FAULT ALLOCATION SUMMARY

Scenario 1: Plaintiff's Best Case

Scenario 2: Middle Ground

Scenario 3: Defense Best Case

SECTION 5: TOTAL DAMAGES CALCULATION

Economic Damages:

Non-Economic Damages:

Total Damages:

SECTION 6: COMPARATIVE FAULT REDUCTION CALCULATION

Scenario 1: Plaintiff's Best Case

☐ Recovery permitted under jurisdictional rules
☐ Recovery barred (plaintiff fault exceeds threshold)

Scenario 2: Middle Ground

☐ Recovery permitted under jurisdictional rules
☐ Recovery barred (plaintiff fault exceeds threshold)

Scenario 3: Defense Best Case

☐ Recovery permitted under jurisdictional rules
☐ Recovery barred (plaintiff fault exceeds threshold)

SECTION 7: JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY ANALYSIS

Jurisdictional Rule:

☐ Pure Joint and Several Liability
- Each defendant liable for 100% of plaintiff's damages

☐ Several Liability Only
- Each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault

☐ Hybrid/Threshold System
- Joint and several for defendants above [____]% fault
- Several only for defendants below threshold

☐ Economic/Non-Economic Split
- Joint and several for economic damages only
- Several liability for non-economic damages

Application to This Case:

Defendant 1: [________________________________]
Fault: [____]%
Liability Type: ☐ Joint and Several ☐ Several Only
Maximum Liability: $ [________________]

Defendant 2: [________________________________]
Fault: [____]%
Liability Type: ☐ Joint and Several ☐ Several Only
Maximum Liability: $ [________________]

Defendant 3: [________________________________]
Fault: [____]%
Liability Type: ☐ Joint and Several ☐ Several Only
Maximum Liability: $ [________________]

SECTION 8: EMPTY CHAIR ANALYSIS

Impact of Non-Party Fault Allocation:

Non-Party: [________________________________]

Collectibility Concerns:

SECTION 9: SETTLEMENT VALUE MATRIX

Recovery by Scenario and Defendant:

Scenario 1: Plaintiff's Best Case (Plaintiff [____]% at fault)

Scenario 2: Middle Ground (Plaintiff [____]% at fault)

Scenario 3: Defense Best Case (Plaintiff [____]% at fault)

SECTION 10: SETTLEMENT ALLOCATION WORKSHEET

If Settling with Less Than All Defendants:

Settlement with: [________________________________]
Settlement Amount: $ [________________]

Good Faith Settlement Considerations:

☐ Settlement proportional to settling defendant's fault
☐ Settlement within policy limits
☐ Settling defendant's ability to pay considered
☐ Good faith determination required (state: [____])

SECTION 11: SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Expected Recovery Range:

Key Risk Factors:

☐ Plaintiff fault near bar threshold
☐ Weak evidence on defendant negligence
☐ Strong comparative fault evidence
☐ Uncollectible defendant(s)
☐ Empty chair defense likely
☐ Jury appeal concerns
☐ Other: [________________________________]

Settlement Recommendation:

Recommended Settlement Range: $ [________________] to $ [________________]

Rationale:
[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

SECTION 12: DOCUMENTATION CHECKLIST

☐ Police/incident report
☐ Witness statements
☐ Photographs/video evidence
☐ Expert reports (liability)
☐ Defendant discovery responses
☐ Deposition transcripts
☐ Applicable statutes/regulations
☐ Similar case verdicts/settlements
☐ Insurance policy information
☐ Asset searches

CERTIFICATION

I certify that this comparative fault analysis is based on available evidence and applicable law. This worksheet is for settlement evaluation purposes and actual fault determinations will be made by the trier of fact.

Signature: ________________________________________ Date: [__/__/____]

Print Name: [________________________________]

Title: [________________________________]

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Justia: Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws 50-State Survey
• Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability
• FindLaw: What Is Comparative Negligence?
• Trial Lawyers Journal: What is Comparative Negligence?

This worksheet is for informational purposes only. Comparative fault rules vary significantly by jurisdiction. Consult legal counsel regarding applicable law and case-specific considerations.