What Happens if an Insurance Company Blames You for Your Injury in Massachusetts?

If an insurance company says you were partly responsible for an accident, comparative negligence in Massachusetts may affect how much compensation you can recover. Being blamed does not automatically mean your personal injury claim is over. You were injured because of someone else’s actions. You received medical treatment, missed time from work, and submitted a claim expecting the insurance company to evaluate what happened. Then the response comes back: They say you were partly responsible. Maybe another driver caused a collision but the insurer says you were speeding. Perhaps you fell because of a dangerous property condition but the insurance company argues you should have seen it. Or another person’s negligence clearly contributed to your injury, yet the insurer claims something you did made the accident worse.

Being blamed does not necessarily mean your personal injury claim is over.

Massachusetts follows a comparative negligence system. That means an injured person may potentially recover damages even when that person bears some responsibility for what happened. The percentage of fault can, however, have a significant effect on the amount recovered and, at a certain point, whether recovery is permitted at all.

If an insurance company is blaming you for your injury, understanding comparative negligence in Massachusetts is an important first step.

What Does It Mean When an Insurance Company Says You Were Partly at Fault?

When an insurer says you contributed to your own injury, it is disputing liability or arguing that responsibility should be divided.

Consider a car accident.

Another driver turns left in front of you and a collision occurs. You believe that driver’s failure to yield caused the crash.

The driver’s insurance company may agree that its insured made the turn but argue that you were driving too fast and could have avoided the collision.

Or imagine you fall on a dangerous stairway.

You claim that the property owner failed to correct an unsafe condition. The insurer responds that the condition was visible and you should have noticed it.

Those allegations can matter because Massachusetts law allows negligence to be divided among the people involved.

But an insurer saying you were partly responsible does not make the allegation true.

Fault should be evaluated using the evidence.

How Does Comparative Negligence Work in Massachusetts?

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 85 establishes the state’s comparative negligence rule.

Under the statute, a person’s contributory negligence does not bar recovery if that person’s negligence was not greater than the total negligence attributable to the person or persons from whom recovery is sought. Any damages awarded are then reduced in proportion to the injured person’s percentage of negligence.

You can read the statute directly through the Massachusetts General Court, Chapter 231, Section 85.

The distinction between “not greater than” and “greater than” is important.

Suppose a jury determines that another party was 80% responsible for an accident and you were 20% responsible.

Your negligence would not necessarily prevent recovery, but your damages would be reduced by 20%.

If total damages were $100,000, a 20% reduction would leave $80,000.

The numbers become much more important as your alleged share of responsibility increases.

What Is the 51% Rule in Massachusetts?

You may hear Massachusetts’s comparative negligence system described as a modified comparative negligence rule or a “51% rule.”

The statute itself provides the more precise explanation.

An injured person’s negligence cannot be greater than the total negligence attributable to the person or persons against whom recovery is sought.

For a simple case involving one plaintiff and one defendant, that generally means:

If the plaintiff is 20% negligent and the defendant is 80% negligent, recovery may still be available, reduced by 20%.

If each is 50% negligent, the plaintiff’s negligence is not greater than the defendant’s, so recovery is not barred under §85, although damages would be reduced by 50%.

If the plaintiff is 51% negligent and the defendant is 49% negligent, the plaintiff’s negligence is greater, and recovery would be barred under this comparative-negligence rule.

Cases involving multiple defendants can require a more detailed analysis because the statute compares the plaintiff’s negligence with the total negligence of the people against whom recovery is sought.

How Does Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts Affect Compensation?

Understanding comparative negligence in Massachusetts is especially important when even a small change in the percentage of fault could significantly affect the final recovery.

Comparative negligence can affect damages directly.

Imagine you establish $200,000 in compensable damages.

If you are found 10% responsible, a 10% reduction would result in $180,000.

At 25%, the amount would be reduced to $150,000.

At 40%, it would be reduced to $120,000.

At 50%, it would be reduced to $100,000.

Those examples are simplified illustrations. Actual personal injury cases involve questions about liability, causation, damages, insurance coverage and the evidence supporting each claimed loss.

The important point is that even a relatively small shift in the percentage of fault can make a substantial financial difference in a serious injury case.

Does the Insurance Company’s Percentage of Fault Decide Your Case?

No.

An insurance company may take a position about fault while investigating or negotiating a claim.

That position is not itself a court judgment.

Suppose an adjuster tells you:

“We believe you were 40% responsible.”

That does not establish 40% as a legal fact simply because an insurance company assigned the number.

The evidence may support a different conclusion.

In a litigated negligence case, disputed questions about negligence and comparative responsibility can ultimately be determined through the legal process.

Massachusetts law also contains an important provision concerning the burden of proof. Section 85 states that the burden of alleging and proving negligence that would diminish or bar the plaintiff’s recovery rests on the person seeking to establish that negligence. The statute also provides that the plaintiff is presumed to have been exercising due care.

That makes evidence particularly important when an insurer attempts to shift some or all of the responsibility to the injured person.

Why Would an Insurance Company Blame an Injured Person?

Liability affects the value of an injury claim.

If an insurer can establish that an injured person was partly negligent, the potential damages may be reduced.

If the injured person’s negligence exceeds the threshold established by Massachusetts law, recovery may be barred under the comparative-negligence statute.

That creates a reason for fault to be carefully investigated.

But not every allegation of comparative negligence is necessarily supported by the evidence.

An insurer might argue that a driver was speeding, a pedestrian was distracted, a customer failed to notice a hazard, or an injured person ignored a warning.

Each claim needs to be examined in context.

What exactly happened?

What evidence supports the allegation?

Are there witnesses?

Is there video?

Do photographs support one version of events?

What do police, incident, maintenance or other relevant records show?

The answer should come from the facts rather than an assumption that one party’s account is automatically correct.

What Evidence Can Help When Fault Is Disputed?

Evidence can be critical when comparative negligence in Massachusetts becomes disputed because each party may present a different version of how the accident happened.

Evidence becomes particularly important when both sides describe the accident differently.

The most useful evidence depends on the type of case.

After a motor vehicle crash, photographs of the vehicles and roadway may help establish where the collision occurred and how the vehicles were positioned. Dashcam footage, traffic cameras, witness statements and police reports may provide additional information.

After an injury on someone else’s property, photographs may show the condition that caused the accident. Surveillance footage can be important. Maintenance and inspection records may become relevant.

Witnesses can also matter.

Someone who saw the accident may provide information that neither party can establish alone.

Preserve evidence as soon as reasonably possible. Video can be overwritten. Property conditions can be repaired. Vehicles can be fixed or destroyed. Witnesses can become difficult to locate.

Evidence that exists today may not exist six months from now.

What if You Were Partly at Fault for a Car Accident?

Car accidents are one of the clearest examples of how comparative negligence can arise.

Suppose another driver changes lanes without checking and strikes your vehicle.

The other driver’s insurer might argue that you were traveling too fast.

Or another driver runs a red light, but the insurer argues that you were distracted and could have reacted sooner.

Fault does not always have to be all-or-nothing.

Swartz & Swartz’s Boston Car Accident Lawyer page specifically addresses comparative negligence and notes that someone who is partially responsible for a Massachusetts crash may still potentially recover damages depending on the percentage of fault.

When responsibility is disputed, evidence such as vehicle damage, photographs, traffic-signal information, video, witnesses and crash records may become particularly important.

What if You Are Blamed for a Slip and Fall?

Comparative negligence can also arise in premises liability cases.

Imagine you slip on liquid in a store.

The store’s insurer may argue that the spill was visible and you should have avoided it.

Or you fall on damaged stairs and the insurer argues that you were not paying attention.

That does not automatically establish comparative negligence.

Questions may include how long the hazard existed, whether the property owner knew or reasonably should have known about it, whether there were warnings, how visible the hazard actually was, lighting conditions, what the injured person was doing, and whether reasonable care was exercised by everyone involved.

A photograph taken immediately after the accident may tell a very different story from a photograph taken after the condition has been cleaned or repaired.

What if the Insurance Company Says You Should Have Avoided the Accident?

This is another common way fault disputes can arise.

The insurer may acknowledge that its insured did something wrong but argue that you could have prevented the resulting injury.

That allegation should still be evaluated against the circumstances.

An emergency can develop in seconds.

A driver may have little time to react.

A pedestrian may not have a safe escape route.

A customer may have no reason to expect a dangerous condition in a particular location.

The question is not whether, with unlimited hindsight, someone can imagine a different response.

Negligence cases generally examine whether the conduct at issue met the applicable standard of reasonable care under the circumstances.

Can Violating a Law Affect Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts?

Potentially.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 85 specifically addresses this issue.

The statute states that when a plaintiff violates a criminal statute, ordinance or regulation and that violation contributes to the injury, death or damage, the violation may be considered evidence of the plaintiff’s negligence.

But the statute also says the violation does not, for that reason alone, automatically bar recovery.

Again, the complete circumstances matter.

Can Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts Affect Pain and Suffering?

Yes, because comparative negligence can reduce the damages ultimately recoverable in a negligence case.

Suppose an injured person establishes economic losses such as medical bills and lost wages as well as non-economic damages for pain and suffering.

If the person is found to bear a percentage of negligence under Massachusetts law, the damages allowed are diminished proportionally.

Swartz & Swartz explains how non-economic damages can be documented in How Do You Prove Pain and Suffering in a Massachusetts Personal Injury Case?. Medical records, testimony, photographs, treatment history and evidence showing how an injury changed someone’s daily life may all help establish the effects of an injury.

Comparative negligence and damages are therefore separate questions that can intersect.

One question asks how much harm the injury caused.

Another asks how responsibility for causing the accident should be allocated.

What if the Insurance Company Blames a Pre-Existing Condition?

That is related, but it is not the same issue as comparative negligence.

An insurer may argue that your current symptoms were caused by arthritis, an old back injury, previous surgery or another condition that existed before the accident.

That is generally a causation and damages issue rather than an argument that you negligently caused the accident.

For example, having a bad back before a car crash does not mean you were partly responsible for another driver hitting your vehicle.

The question may instead be whether the collision caused a new injury or aggravated the condition you already had.

Swartz & Swartz has a separate guide explaining how pre-existing conditions can affect Massachusetts personal injury claims.

Keeping these issues separate is important.

“Your injury already existed” and “you helped cause the accident” are two different arguments.

Should You Give the Insurance Company a Recorded Statement?

Be careful about giving detailed statements when liability is disputed.

After an accident, you may not yet know every relevant fact.

You may not have seen video.

You may not know what witnesses observed.

You may not even fully understand how the accident occurred.

You may also still be receiving medical evaluation for your injuries.

A casual statement can later become important.

For example:

“I didn’t see him until the last second.”

An insurer might interpret that as evidence that you were not paying attention.

But perhaps the other vehicle entered the roadway suddenly from behind an obstruction.

Context matters.

Do not lie or intentionally withhold required information. But before giving a detailed recorded statement to another party’s insurance company after a serious injury, consider obtaining legal advice about your rights and obligations.

What if You Already Apologized After the Accident?

People apologize instinctively.

“I’m sorry” can mean many things.

You may be sorry that someone was hurt.

You may be sorry the accident happened.

You may simply be reacting emotionally to a stressful event.

An apology alone does not necessarily establish exactly how an accident happened or determine the percentages of negligence.

The surrounding evidence still matters.

Avoid trying to “correct” an earlier statement by inventing a different version.

Instead, be accurate about what you actually remember.

What if You Told Someone You Might Have Been Partly at Fault?

Again, the entire context matters.

People sometimes make assumptions immediately after an accident before seeing all the evidence.

A driver might initially believe they entered an intersection too late, then video later shows that the other vehicle ignored a traffic signal.

A customer who falls may initially assume they simply tripped, only to later discover a broken floor surface.

Your own statement can certainly become evidence.

But a statement does not necessarily replace the need to investigate what actually occurred.

Can an Insurance Company Use Social Media to Argue You Were at Fault?

Potentially relevant posts, photographs, videos and comments can become evidence in litigation.

This is particularly important after an accident.

Do not post a detailed explanation of who you believe caused the incident.

Do not argue with the other party online.

Do not post photographs or videos intended to “prove” your side.

Do not ask friends to post favorable accounts.

And do not delete potentially relevant material simply because you are worried about how it may look. Evidence-preservation obligations can arise once litigation is anticipated.

If you have questions about existing social media material after a serious injury, discuss them with your attorney.

What if More Than One Person Caused the Accident?

Comparative negligence can become more complicated when multiple defendants are involved.

Massachusetts Section 85 states that the plaintiff’s negligence is compared with the total negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought. The combined negligence of the plaintiff and defendants equals 100% for this purpose.

Imagine an accident in which multiple parties may have contributed to what happened.

Determining responsibility may require investigating each person’s conduct rather than simply deciding whether the injured person or one defendant was “at fault.”

Cases involving multiple vehicles, contractors, businesses, property owners, product manufacturers or other parties can therefore require a more detailed liability analysis.

Does Comparative Negligence Apply to Every Personal Injury Case?

Not necessarily in exactly the same way.

Comparative negligence under Chapter 231, Section 85 applies to negligence actions, but personal injury cases can arise under different legal theories.

Product liability, medical malpractice, dog-related injuries, intentional misconduct, statutory claims and other cases may involve different legal standards and defenses.

That is why it can be misleading to apply a simplified “51% rule” to every situation involving an injury.

The nature of the claim matters.

What if the Insurance Company Denies the Claim Completely?

A denial does not necessarily establish that the claim has no merit.

The first question is why the claim was denied.

The insurer may dispute liability.

It may argue that its insured did not cause the accident.

It may contend that you were primarily responsible.

It may challenge whether the accident caused your injuries.

It may dispute the severity of the damages.

It may raise a coverage issue.

Those are different disputes and may require different evidence.

A written denial, claim correspondence and other insurance documents should be preserved.

How Can Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts Affect a Settlement?

Fault disputes can have a major effect on settlement negotiations.

Consider a case with substantial damages but contested liability.

The insurer may value the claim differently if it believes there is evidence supporting a significant comparative-negligence defense.

The injured person’s attorney may disagree and present evidence supporting a much lower percentage or no comparative negligence at all.

Negotiations can therefore involve both sides assessing risk.

How strong is the evidence?

How credible are the witnesses?

Is there video?

Are there conflicting accounts?

Could a jury reasonably assign some responsibility to the injured person?

The answers can affect how each side evaluates settlement.

Should You Accept a Settlement if the Insurer Blames You?

Do not evaluate an offer based only on the insurance company’s percentage of fault.

First understand the evidence.

Then understand your damages.

A settlement involves more than deciding whether you were 10%, 20% or 30% responsible.

You may also need to consider medical expenses, lost income, future treatment, permanent impairment, pain and suffering, available insurance coverage, liens or reimbursement claims, and the risks associated with continued litigation.

Once a personal injury claim is finally settled and an appropriate release is signed, the claim generally cannot simply be reopened because you later disagree with how it was valued.

That makes it important to understand both liability and damages before resolving a significant injury claim.

What Can a Massachusetts Personal Injury Attorney Do When Fault Is Disputed?

When an insurer is trying to place responsibility on the injured person, an attorney can investigate the evidence rather than accepting the insurer’s assessment at face value.

Depending on the case, that may involve obtaining photographs, video, witness statements, police or incident reports, maintenance records, medical records, electronic information and expert analysis.

An attorney can also examine whether the facts actually support the percentage of negligence being asserted.

Swartz & Swartz’s Personal Injury Lawyers in Boston page explains that liability disputes are one reason legal representation can become important after a serious injury. The firm handles personal injury matters involving car accidents, unsafe properties, defective products and other forms of alleged negligence.

Frequently Asked Questions About Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts

Can I recover compensation if I was partly at fault in Massachusetts?

Potentially. Massachusetts law provides that contributory negligence does not bar recovery when the plaintiff’s negligence is not greater than the total negligence attributable to the defendant or defendants. Any damages allowed are reduced according to the plaintiff’s percentage of negligence.

What happens if I am 20% at fault?

In a simplified example, if total compensable damages were $100,000 and you were found 20% negligent, the damages would be reduced by 20%, resulting in $80,000.

What happens if I am 50% at fault in Massachusetts?

In a simple one-plaintiff, one-defendant negligence case, Section 85 states that recovery is barred when the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendant’s negligence. At exactly 50%, the plaintiff’s negligence is not greater, although damages would be reduced by 50%.

What happens if I am 51% at fault?

In a simple case against one defendant who is 49% negligent, being 51% negligent would exceed the statutory threshold, so recovery would be barred under Massachusetts’s comparative-negligence rule.

Does the insurance company decide my percentage of fault?

An insurer can take a position regarding fault while evaluating a claim, but its assessment is not itself a court judgment establishing your legal percentage of negligence.

Who has to prove I was negligent?

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231, Section 85 places the burden of alleging and proving negligence that would reduce or bar the plaintiff’s recovery on the party seeking to establish that negligence. The statute also states that the plaintiff is presumed to have exercised due care.

Can comparative negligence apply to a slip and fall?

It can potentially arise in negligence claims involving property conditions. For example, a defendant might argue that an injured person failed to notice an obvious condition. Whether that argument succeeds depends on the evidence and applicable law.

Does comparative negligence reduce pain and suffering damages?

If comparative negligence results in a percentage reduction of damages under §85, that reduction can affect the damages allowed in the negligence action.

What if the insurer says my old injury caused my symptoms?

That is generally a different issue. An argument concerning a pre-existing condition often concerns medical causation and damages rather than comparative negligence for causing the accident.

Being Blamed Does Not End the Investigation

A claim involving comparative negligence in Massachusetts should be evaluated based on the evidence, not simply on an insurer’s initial percentage of fault.

When an insurance company blames you for your injury, it can make a claim feel as though the outcome has already been decided.

It has not.

Massachusetts law specifically recognizes that responsibility in a negligence case can be divided. An injured person does not necessarily lose the ability to recover simply because some negligence is attributed to that person. What matters is the allocation of responsibility under the law and the evidence supporting it.

That makes early evidence especially important.

Preserve photographs.

Identify witnesses.

Keep relevant documents and communications.

Obtain appropriate medical care.

Avoid making assumptions about fault before the circumstances have been fully investigated.

Most importantly, do not treat an insurance company’s initial assessment as the final legal determination.

Swartz & Swartz, P.C. represents people injured through negligence in Boston, Massachusetts, and the surrounding New England states. To discuss a serious injury or disputed-liability claim, contact Swartz & Swartz, P.C. at (617) 742-1900.

Need Help?

If you or someone you know, needs help from a lawyer, contact the law offices of Swartz & Swartz, use our live chat, or send us a message using the form below and we’ll get in touch to assess your case and how we can help.