After an accident, it’s common to hear from an insurance adjuster that you were partly to blame — and that because of it, you have no case. In Washington, that’s usually wrong. Even if you share some of the fault, you can still recover compensation. Here’s how the rule actually works, and why you shouldn’t let a quick accusation of fault talk you out of your claim.
Washington Follows Pure Comparative Fault
Washington uses a system called pure comparative fault. Under it, if you were partly responsible for your own injury, your compensation is reduced in proportion to your share of the fault — but you are not barred from recovering. RCW 4.22.005.
In plain terms: being partly at fault lowers what you can collect; it does not erase your claim.
A Simple Example
Suppose your total damages — medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering — add up to $100,000. The other driver was mostly to blame, but you were found 20% at fault for the crash.
Under Washington’s rule, your recovery is reduced by your 20% share. You would still recover $80,000.
The same math works at the extremes. Even if you were found 70% at fault, you could still recover the remaining 30% of your damages. Washington does not cut off recovery at the halfway point the way some other states do — which is exactly why an adjuster’s claim that you were partly at fault and therefore owe nothing so often doesn’t hold up.
How Fault Gets Divided
When more than one person contributed to an accident, the fact-finder assigns each party a percentage of the total fault. That comparison looks at both how each party behaved and how much their conduct actually caused the harm.
Because fault is a judgment call — not a fixed number — it is frequently disputed. Insurance companies have every incentive to inflate your share, since every percentage point assigned to you is money off your recovery. This is one of the biggest reasons to document the accident thoroughly and to be careful about what you say to an insurer.
Important Exceptions to Know
The general rule is generous to injured people, but there are limits.
Alcohol or Drugs
If the injured person was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the accident, that condition was a proximate cause of the injury, and a fact-finder determines the person was more than 50% at fault, it can be a complete defense — meaning no recovery at all. RCW 5.40.060. This is a significant carve-out from the general rule that recovery is reduced rather than barred, and it’s one reason intoxication allegations are taken so seriously in injury cases.
Fault Can Shift the Numbers Dramatically
Even outside that exception, how fault is apportioned can make or break the value of a case. A difference between being found 10% at fault versus 40% at fault is a large swing in dollars. Getting the apportionment right — and pushing back on an insurer’s attempt to over-assign fault to you — is often where an experienced attorney adds the most value.
Don’t Let an Accusation of Fault Stop You
The single most important takeaway: being partly at fault does not mean you have no claim. Insurance companies know Washington’s rule well, and some count on injured people not knowing it. If you’ve been told your own fault bars your recovery, that advice may be costing you thousands of dollars you’re entitled to.
At O’Driscoll Law, PLLC, we help injured people across Spokane and the Inland Northwest push back when insurers try to shift blame. If you’ve been hurt and are being told the accident was partly your fault, contact us for a free, no-obligation consultation. We’ll look at how fault is likely to be apportioned in your case and what your claim is really worth.
