Comparative Negligence Traps That Could Cut Your Settlement in Half

After an accident, most people focus on proving who caused the harm. But in Arizona, that is not the end of the story. Even if you clearly suffered injuries because of another person’s negligence, the defense or insurance company may still argue that you share some of the blame. This strategy relies on a legal principle called comparative negligence, and it is one of the most common tools insurers use to reduce settlements. Understanding how comparative negligence works is critical, because the way fault is divided can make a significant difference in the compensation you ultimately receive.

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a system courts use to determine how responsibility for an accident is shared. Unlike in some states where even a small degree of fault can prevent you from recovering anything, Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence rule. This means you can still recover damages even if you were mostly at fault, but your recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault assigned to you.

Imagine a car accident where you were hit by another driver who ran a red light, but the insurance company points out that you were also speeding at the time. If a jury finds you 30 percent at fault and your damages total $100,000, your recovery would be reduced to $70,000. On paper, this may seem fair, but in reality it gives insurers tremendous leverage to minimize payouts. Every percentage point matters, and a slight increase in the fault assigned to you could take thousands of dollars out of your settlement.

For a deeper look at Arizona’s pure comparative negligence law, you can review the Arizona Revised Statutes §12-2505.

How Insurance Companies Use Comparative Negligence Against Victims

Insurance companies know that comparative negligence is a powerful weapon, and they waste no time trying to use it against accident victims. One common approach is to spin the facts of the accident in a way that shifts attention away from their insured’s negligence and onto your behavior. For example, if you slipped on a wet floor in a grocery store, the property owner’s insurer may argue that you should have been watching where you were going, even if the spill was not marked or cleaned up. By framing the accident as partly your fault, they create a basis to reduce what they owe.

Another trap is the request for a recorded statement. Shortly after an accident, an adjuster may call and ask you to “just tell your side of the story.” What feels like a casual conversation is actually a carefully designed attempt to get you to say something that can later be twisted against you. A simple statement like “I didn’t see the other car coming” or “I might have been going a little fast” can become ammunition for claiming you were negligent. These statements are often taken out of context and exaggerated in negotiations.

The lack of strong evidence also plays into the hands of insurers. If you do not have photos, witness statements, or complete police reports, the other side has an easier time filling in the gaps with their version of events. Without documentation, it becomes your word against theirs, and the insurer will seize the opportunity to argue you share blame. This is especially true in slip and fall accident cases where property owners often argue that hazards were “open and obvious” and that you should have avoided them.

Why Comparative Negligence Hurts Victims

The problem with comparative negligence is not just the math. It is the way the rule allows insurers to shift responsibility away from the negligent party and onto the person who is already hurt. When insurers succeed, victims end up with settlements that are too small to cover the true cost of recovery. Medical bills, lost wages, physical therapy, and long-term care can easily add up to far more than what remains after fault reductions.

Beyond the financial harm, the process itself adds stress to victims who are already struggling. Instead of focusing on healing, you are forced to defend your own actions as though you caused the accident. This can make victims feel pressured to accept unfair settlements just to move on, even when the compensation offered does not reflect the full extent of their losses. The truth is that the comparative negligence system often leaves ordinary people at a disadvantage while giving powerful insurance companies another way to avoid paying what is fair.

For more background on how insurers operate nationwide, you can read the National Association of Insurance Commissioners’ Consumer Guide.

The Role of a Personal Injury Lawyer

This is where having a strong personal injury lawyer becomes critical. An experienced attorney knows how comparative negligence works and how to prevent it from being used unfairly. At Perez Law Group, PLLC, we move quickly to gather evidence before it can be lost or manipulated. This includes securing surveillance footage, interviewing witnesses, obtaining police reports, and working with accident reconstruction experts when necessary. The goal is to build a clear, fact-based picture of what really happened so that insurers cannot distort the story.

We also protect our clients from the traps insurers set. One of the first steps we take is handling all communications with the insurance company so you do not feel pressured into giving a recorded statement that could be used against you. In negotiations, we challenge attempts to inflate your share of fault, making sure the focus remains on the negligence of the party who caused the harm. And if the insurance company refuses to be fair, we are prepared to present your case in court, where evidence and law—not spin—decide the outcome.

Why Every Percentage Point Matters

When it comes to comparative negligence, many people underestimate how much is at stake. A five or ten percent increase in your assigned fault can mean thousands of dollars less in your pocket. That money is often the difference between being able to pay for necessary treatment or having to live with unpaid bills and lasting financial strain. By fighting these reductions aggressively, your attorney helps ensure you are not left carrying an unfair share of the burden for an accident you did not cause.

Get Help Protecting Your Rights

If you have been injured in a car accident, slip and fall, or any situation where negligence caused your harm, it is important to understand how comparative negligence could affect your case. The sooner you speak with an attorney, the better your chances of avoiding the traps insurers use to reduce settlements. At Perez Law Group, PLLC, we represent clients in Peoria, Glendale, Phoenix, and throughout Maricopa County, and we are committed to protecting victims from unfair blame-shifting tactics.

Contact us today to schedule a free consultation. Do not let comparative negligence cut your settlement in half. With the right legal team on your side, you can fight back and secure the compensation you need to move forward.