When a loved one dies due to someone else’s negligence in Arizona, families face not only devastating loss but also complex legal questions about fault and financial recovery. Arizona’s comparative fault system directly affects wrongful death claims, determining whether survivors can pursue compensation even when the deceased person shares some responsibility for the accident that caused their death. Understanding how comparative fault wrongful death arizona cases work is essential because Arizona allows recovery even when your loved one was partially at fault, though the percentage of their fault reduces the final settlement or verdict amount.
Arizona follows a pure comparative negligence rule under A.R.S. § 12-2505, meaning that even if your deceased family member was 99% responsible for the accident, you can still recover 1% of the total damages from other at-fault parties. This stands in sharp contrast to modified comparative fault states where any fault above 50% completely bars recovery. In wrongful death cases, insurance companies frequently argue that the deceased contributed to their own death to minimize their payout obligation. They might claim your loved one was speeding, not wearing a seatbelt, distracted, or violated a safety rule, then use Arizona’s comparative fault system to slash the compensation owed to surviving family members.
If you are navigating a comparative fault wrongful death arizona claim, Wrongful Death Trial Attorney LLC provides experienced representation to protect your family’s financial future. Our attorneys thoroughly investigate every detail of the accident to minimize unfair fault allegations while maximizing your recovery from truly responsible parties. Call (480) 420-0500 today or complete our online form to schedule a free consultation and learn how we can help your family pursue the full compensation you deserve.
What Is Comparative Fault in Arizona Wrongful Death Cases
Comparative fault, also called comparative negligence, is a legal doctrine that allocates responsibility for an accident among all parties whose actions contributed to the harm. In Arizona wrongful death claims filed under A.R.S. § 12-611, the same comparative fault principles that apply to personal injury cases also determine how damages are awarded when someone dies from injuries caused by negligence. If the person who died bears some responsibility for the accident that killed them, the court or jury assigns a percentage of fault to the deceased and reduces the damages awarded to survivors by that percentage.
Arizona uses a pure comparative negligence system, which means there is no threshold that completely bars recovery. Even if the deceased person was predominantly at fault, surviving family members can still collect damages from other negligent parties proportional to those parties’ share of responsibility. For example, if total damages are $1 million and the deceased is found 70% at fault while the defendant is 30% at fault, the family can still recover $300,000. This differs from modified comparative fault states where being 50% or 51% at fault eliminates any right to compensation.
The practical effect in wrongful death cases is that insurance companies and defense attorneys aggressively investigate the deceased person’s actions before death to argue high fault percentages. They scrutinize whether your loved one was speeding, intoxicated, distracted by a phone, failed to follow safety procedures at work, or ignored warning signs. Because the deceased cannot defend their own actions or explain their perspective, the burden falls on surviving family members and their attorneys to reconstruct events accurately and challenge exaggerated fault claims that aim to minimize payouts.
How Comparative Fault Is Determined in Arizona Wrongful Death Claims
The process of assigning fault percentages in comparative fault wrongful death arizona cases involves detailed investigation, evidence analysis, and ultimately either settlement negotiation or a jury verdict. Courts consider all actions and circumstances that contributed to the fatal accident, examining what each party did or failed to do and how those actions directly caused or worsened the outcome. The goal is to fairly distribute responsibility based on each party’s degree of negligence.
Evidence plays a central role in determining fault percentages. Police reports, accident reconstruction analyses, witness statements, surveillance footage, cell phone records, toxicology reports, employment records, and expert testimony all contribute to the fault determination. In workplace wrongful death cases, OSHA reports and safety compliance records matter significantly. In traffic fatalities, black box data from vehicles, traffic camera footage, and skid mark analysis help establish what each driver did in the moments before the crash.
Juries receive instructions on Arizona’s comparative negligence law under A.R.S. § 12-2505 and must assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident. They answer special verdict questions that require them to determine what percentage of fault belongs to the deceased, the defendant, and any other parties. The jury calculates total damages first without considering fault, then reduces the award by the deceased’s percentage of responsibility. If multiple defendants share fault, each pays only their proportional share of the remaining damages after the deceased’s fault percentage is subtracted.
Common Comparative Fault Defenses in Arizona Wrongful Death Cases
Defense attorneys and insurance companies deploy predictable strategies to increase the deceased’s fault percentage and decrease their own clients’ financial liability. Understanding these tactics helps families and their attorneys prepare strong counterclaims that protect the full value of the wrongful death claim.
Failure to Wear Seatbelt or Safety Equipment – Defendants argue that the deceased would have survived or sustained less severe injuries if they had worn available safety equipment such as seatbelts, helmets, or workplace protective gear. Arizona law under A.R.S. § 28-909 allows evidence of seatbelt non-use to be introduced in civil cases, and defendants use this to argue significant comparative fault even when their negligence caused the accident. Your attorney must demonstrate that the safety equipment would not have prevented death or that the defendant’s conduct was so egregious that minor safety violations pale in comparison.
Distracted Driving or Phone Use – In fatal car accidents, insurance companies immediately subpoena the deceased’s phone records to determine if they were texting, talking, or using apps at the time of the crash. Even a single text message sent within minutes of the accident becomes ammunition to argue distracted driving contributed to the collision. Defense experts present timing analyses suggesting the deceased was looking at their phone during critical seconds before impact, pushing fault percentages higher even when the defendant ran a red light or crossed the center line.
Speeding or Traffic Violations – If accident reconstruction suggests the deceased was driving above the speed limit or violated any traffic law before the fatal crash, defendants emphasize these violations to shift fault. They argue that excessive speed reduced reaction time, increased stopping distance, or made the collision more severe. Even when the defendant caused the accident through drunk driving or reckless behavior, they point to the deceased’s speeding as a contributing factor that justifies reducing the damage award.
Pre-Existing Medical Conditions – In cases where a medical condition may have contributed to the death, such as a heart attack suffered during an accident or a diabetic emergency, defendants argue the deceased’s health problems were the true cause of death rather than the defendant’s negligence. They introduce medical records showing prior diagnoses, medications, or risk factors and claim these conditions made death inevitable regardless of the accident.
Voluntary Assumption of Risk – Defendants assert that the deceased knowingly engaged in inherently dangerous activities and therefore assumed the risk of injury or death. This defense appears in workplace deaths where employees allegedly ignored safety protocols, recreational accident deaths involving extreme sports, and situations where warning signs or known hazards were present. Arizona courts require proof that the deceased had actual knowledge of the specific danger and voluntarily chose to encounter it, not merely that the activity was generally risky.
Intoxication or Substance Use – When toxicology reports show any level of alcohol or drugs in the deceased’s system, defendants argue intoxication impaired judgment, reaction time, or physical abilities and substantially contributed to the fatal accident. Arizona law allows this evidence even when the defendant was also intoxicated or violated multiple traffic laws. Defendants hire toxicology experts who testify about impairment levels and causation, pushing for high comparative fault percentages based on substance use alone.
How Comparative Fault Affects Wrongful Death Damage Awards
The financial impact of comparative fault wrongful death arizona determinations directly reduces every category of damages awarded to surviving family members. Arizona wrongful death claims under A.R.S. § 12-612 allow recovery for economic losses such as lost financial support, lost household services, medical expenses before death, and funeral costs, plus non-economic losses including loss of companionship, guidance, and emotional support. Comparative fault percentages reduce both categories proportionally.
When a jury or settlement assigns fault percentages, the calculation works as a simple reduction formula. If total damages equal $2 million and the deceased is found 40% at fault, the final award is $1.2 million. If the deceased is found 80% at fault, the award drops to $400,000. Because Arizona follows pure comparative negligence, families still receive something even at high fault percentages, but the practical reality is that high fault percentages dramatically reduce meaningful compensation. Insurance companies understand this and fight aggressively to push fault percentages as high as possible during litigation.
Multiple defendant cases create additional complexity. If two defendants each bear 30% fault and the deceased bears 40% fault, the family recovers 60% of total damages split between the two defendants according to their individual percentages. Each defendant pays only their share under Arizona’s several liability rules in A.R.S. § 12-2506, meaning if one defendant is judgment-proof or uninsured, the family cannot collect that defendant’s portion from the other defendant. This makes strategic decisions about which parties to sue and how to allocate fault among defendants crucial to maximizing actual recovery.
Wrongful Death Claims Involving Pedestrian and Bicycle Accidents
Pedestrian and bicycle wrongful death cases in Arizona frequently involve harsh comparative fault arguments because vulnerable road users who die in collisions with vehicles cannot explain their actions before the crash. Drivers and their insurance companies routinely claim the pedestrian stepped into traffic unexpectedly, crossed against signals, wore dark clothing at night, or was intoxicated. Cyclists face accusations of riding too far into traffic lanes, failing to signal, running stop signs, or not wearing reflective gear.
Arizona law under A.R.S. § 28-793 requires pedestrians to obey traffic signals and use crosswalks where available, giving defendants statutory grounds to argue comparative fault when pedestrians cross mid-block or against lights. However, drivers still have a duty under A.R.S. § 28-770 to exercise due care to avoid colliding with pedestrians regardless of right-of-way rules. Your wrongful death attorney must demonstrate that even if the pedestrian or cyclist made a mistake, the driver had sufficient time and opportunity to avoid the fatal collision through reasonable attention and speed control but failed to do so.
Workplace Wrongful Death Cases and Comparative Fault in Arizona
When someone dies in a workplace accident, Arizona’s workers’ compensation system under A.R.S. § 23-1021 typically provides the exclusive remedy against employers, barring wrongful death lawsuits even when the employer was negligent. However, families can pursue wrongful death claims against third parties whose negligence contributed to the workplace death, such as equipment manufacturers, contractors, property owners, or drivers. In these third-party wrongful death claims, comparative fault principles apply fully.
Defendants in workplace wrongful death cases argue that the deceased violated safety procedures, ignored training, failed to use provided safety equipment, or acted outside the scope of their job duties. They introduce employee handbooks, training records, safety manuals, and co-worker testimony to establish that the deceased knew proper safety protocols but chose not to follow them. OSHA violation citations against the employer may help your case by demonstrating unsafe working conditions, but defendants counter that the deceased’s own actions broke the causal chain between the unsafe conditions and the death.
Construction site deaths, industrial accidents, and transportation-related workplace fatalities generate particularly aggressive comparative fault defenses. Equipment manufacturers blame worker error rather than design defects. Contractors blame the deceased for entering dangerous areas without authorization. Property owners claim the deceased was an experienced worker who should have recognized obvious hazards. Your attorney must reconstruct the accident scene, interview co-workers, and retain safety experts who can explain how systemic failures and third-party negligence created the deadly situation regardless of any minor mistakes the deceased may have made.
Medical Malpractice Wrongful Death and Comparative Fault
Arizona medical malpractice wrongful death cases under A.R.S. § 12-561 involve situations where healthcare provider negligence causes a patient’s death. Comparative fault arguments in these cases focus on whether the deceased patient contributed to the fatal outcome by failing to follow medical advice, not disclosing complete medical history, delaying treatment, or engaging in behaviors that worsened their condition. Defendants present evidence that the patient was non-compliant with medications, missed follow-up appointments, continued smoking or drinking against medical orders, or ignored warning symptoms.
Arizona law requires expert medical testimony to establish both the provider’s negligence and the patient’s comparative fault, if any. Defense medical experts review records and testify that the patient’s non-compliance was a substantial contributing factor to the death, sometimes arguing fault percentages above 50%. Your medical malpractice attorney must counter with experts who explain that healthcare providers have ongoing duties to monitor non-compliant patients, adjust treatment plans, and take additional precautions when patients have difficulty following instructions. Even when patients make poor health choices, providers cannot escape liability for departures from the standard of care that directly cause death.
Product Liability Wrongful Death Claims and Comparative Fault Defense
When a defective product causes someone’s death in Arizona, surviving family members can file wrongful death claims under product liability theories including design defects, manufacturing defects, and failure to warn under Arizona law as interpreted in cases following the Restatement of Torts. Manufacturers and sellers defend these cases by arguing the deceased misused the product, ignored warnings, modified the product, or used it in ways not intended by the manufacturer. Arizona’s comparative fault system applies to product liability wrongful death cases, reducing damages based on any misuse or assumption of risk by the deceased.
Common comparative fault defenses in product liability wrongful death cases include claims that the deceased removed safety guards from machinery, used products while intoxicated, combined products in dangerous ways not anticipated by warnings, or continued using products after noticing defects. Manufacturers introduce product manuals, warning labels, and expert testimony about foreseeable use versus misuse. Your product liability attorney must prove that the defect existed when the product left the manufacturer’s control and that this defect was a substantial factor causing death even if the deceased used the product in a somewhat unexpected way. Many product misuses are actually foreseeable to manufacturers and should have been addressed through better design or more prominent warnings.
Proving and Minimizing the Deceased’s Comparative Fault
Successfully handling comparative fault wrongful death arizona claims requires thorough investigation that occurs as soon as possible after the death when evidence is fresh and witnesses remember details clearly. Your attorney should immediately preserve accident scene evidence through photographs, measurements, and inspection before conditions change. Obtaining surveillance footage before it is deleted or overwritten is critical. Interviewing witnesses while memories are accurate rather than influenced by later discussions produces more reliable testimony.
Accident reconstruction experts provide crucial testimony that objectively analyzes physical evidence to determine what actually happened versus what defendants claim happened. These experts examine vehicle damage patterns, tire marks, road conditions, lighting, visibility, and timing to reconstruct the sequence of events. In workplace deaths, safety engineers analyze equipment, procedures, and conditions. In medical malpractice cases, medical experts review complete records and explain standards of care. Expert analysis often reveals that actions attributed to the deceased as negligence were actually reasonable responses to dangerous situations created by defendants.
Your attorney should obtain the deceased’s cell phone records, text messages, and app usage data before defendants do, analyzing this information in context to counter allegations of distraction. Character evidence showing the deceased was a careful, responsible person helps juries understand that out-of-character actions alleged by defendants are unlikely. Testimony from friends, family, and co-workers about the deceased’s habits and personality provides context that dry accident reports cannot capture. When defendants claim the deceased was speeding, intoxicated, or distracted, your attorney must investigate whether the defendant’s own illegal or reckless conduct created the emergency that forced your loved one into a no-win situation.
Settlement Negotiations in Comparative Fault Wrongful Death Cases
Most Arizona wrongful death cases settle before trial, with comparative fault percentages being a central negotiation point that determines settlement value. Insurance adjusters assign fault percentages early in the claims process, often placing disproportionate blame on the deceased to justify low settlement offers. Your attorney must present evidence that challenges these initial assessments and demonstrates lower fault percentages than the insurance company claims. The strength of your evidence, quality of expert reports, and credibility of witnesses all influence settlement negotiations.
Settlement discussions involve not only the amount of total damages but also the percentage of fault assigned to each party. An insurance company might agree that total damages are $3 million but argue the deceased was 70% at fault, offering $900,000. Your attorney counters with evidence showing the deceased was only 20% at fault, demanding $2.4 million. Negotiations continue with both sides adjusting their fault assessments based on new evidence, depositions, and expert reports. The risk of trial outcomes influences both sides, since juries can assign unexpected fault percentages that hurt either party.
How Arizona Juries Decide Comparative Fault in Wrongful Death Cases
When wrongful death cases go to trial in Arizona, juries receive detailed instructions about comparative fault under A.R.S. § 12-2505 and must answer special verdict forms that require specific fault percentage findings. The judge instructs jurors that they must determine what percentage of fault belongs to the deceased and what percentage belongs to each defendant, with all percentages totaling 100%. Jurors consider all the evidence presented during trial including testimony, documents, photographs, expert opinions, and demonstrative exhibits.
Jury deliberations on fault percentages involve subjective judgments about whose conduct was more blameworthy, whose actions more directly caused the death, and how much weight to give various contributing factors. Jurors balance statutory violations, expert testimony, physical evidence, and their own common-sense assessments of responsibility. Some jurors focus on the most egregious conduct and assign the highest fault to that party, while others mathematically divide fault based on the number of negligent acts each party committed. The unpredictability of jury fault determinations creates risk for both sides and motivates settlement negotiations.
Trial presentation significantly affects jury fault determinations. Visual recreations of accidents, timeline exhibits, and before-and-after photographs help jurors understand complex sequences of events. Expert testimony that clearly explains technical matters in plain language carries more weight than confusing or overly academic presentations. Character evidence about the deceased humanizes them and makes jurors less likely to assign high fault percentages. Cross-examination that exposes weaknesses in the defendant’s fault theories reduces the defendant’s credibility and shifts fault back toward the defendant.
Comparative Fault in Multi-Vehicle Fatal Accidents
Fatal accidents involving three or more vehicles create complex comparative fault analyses where multiple parties may share responsibility along with the deceased. Arizona law allows juries to assign fault percentages to all involved parties including non-parties, creating scenarios where the deceased, multiple defendants, and even non-defendant drivers all bear portions of fault. These cases require careful strategic decisions about who to sue and how to allocate fault arguments among multiple potentially responsible parties.
Insurance companies in multi-vehicle fatal crashes often point fingers at each other while collectively arguing the deceased was primarily at fault. Your attorney must navigate these competing defenses while maintaining focus on maximizing recovery for your family. Sometimes settling with one defendant early provides funds immediately while continuing litigation against others. Other times, keeping all defendants in the case creates pressure on each to settle because they face uncertainty about how juries will divide fault among them. Expert testimony about the sequence of collisions and which driver’s negligence initiated the chain of events is essential in these cases.
Wrongful Death Claims Involving Drunk or Impaired Drivers
When a drunk or impaired driver causes a fatal accident in Arizona, victims’ families face comparative fault defenses even though the defendant committed criminal conduct. Defense attorneys argue that the deceased contributed to the accident through speeding, distraction, or other factors that combined with the defendant’s intoxication to cause the death. Arizona law allows comparative fault even in cases involving criminal conduct, though juries typically assign higher fault percentages to drunk drivers because driving under the influence violates A.R.S. § 28-1381 and represents particularly reckless behavior.
Dram shop liability claims under A.R.S. § 4-244 create additional defendant options when bars or restaurants over-served visibly intoxicated patrons who then caused fatal accidents. These establishments defend by arguing they did not obviously serve an intoxicated person and that the deceased’s own actions contributed more to the accident than the driver’s intoxication. Social host liability for serving minors also creates potential claims, with similar comparative fault defenses. Your attorney should pursue all available defendants because drunk drivers often lack sufficient insurance or assets to fully compensate families even after comparative fault reductions.
Comparative Fault When the Deceased Had Pre-Existing Conditions
Pre-existing medical conditions, injuries, or disabilities often become focal points in comparative fault wrongful death arizona litigation. Defendants argue that the deceased’s prior health problems made death more likely and that these pre-existing conditions, rather than the defendant’s negligence, were the primary cause of death or significantly contributed to it. Arizona law applies the “eggshell skull” rule, meaning defendants take victims as they find them and cannot reduce liability simply because a healthier person might have survived the same negligence.
However, defendants still argue comparative fault when pre-existing conditions involved the deceased’s own choices or failures. If the deceased had uncontrolled diabetes, untreated heart disease, or medication non-compliance, defendants claim these represented negligent self-care that contributed to death. Your attorney must establish that regardless of pre-existing vulnerabilities, the defendant’s negligence was a substantial factor causing death and that a person with those conditions was still entitled to reasonable care from others. Medical causation experts who can separate the impact of pre-existing conditions from trauma caused by the defendant’s negligence are essential in these cases.
The Role of Insurance in Comparative Fault Wrongful Death Claims
Insurance coverage directly affects comparative fault wrongful death arizona cases because insurance companies control defense strategies and settlement authority. When defendants have insurance, the insurance company hires defense attorneys, pays settlements or judgments up to policy limits, and makes strategic decisions about fault allocation arguments. Insurers have financial incentives to maximize the deceased’s fault percentage and minimize their insured’s liability because every percentage point of fault shifted to the deceased reduces the insurer’s payout obligation.
Multiple insurance policies may apply when several parties share fault. The deceased may have had uninsured/underinsured motorist coverage on their own auto policy that provides compensation when at-fault parties lack sufficient insurance, even after comparative fault reductions. Arizona law under A.R.S. § 20-259.01 allows UM/UIM coverage to be stacked in some circumstances, increasing available compensation. However, the deceased’s own insurance company may also argue comparative fault to reduce their payment obligation under UM/UIM provisions. Your attorney should identify all applicable insurance policies early and develop strategies to maximize recovery from multiple sources.
Appeals and Post-Trial Motions Involving Comparative Fault
After trial, either side may challenge jury fault determinations through post-trial motions or appeals. Defendants argue that fault percentages assigned to the deceased were too low and request new trials or remittitur reducing damages. Plaintiffs argue that the deceased’s assigned fault percentage was excessive given the evidence and that the verdict should be corrected. Arizona appellate courts review fault determinations under abuse of discretion and sufficiency of evidence standards, generally deferring to jury findings unless they are clearly unsupported by the trial record.
Successful appeals require preserving issues during trial through proper objections and motions. If the trial court gave incorrect jury instructions about comparative fault, failed to admit crucial evidence about the defendant’s negligence, or allowed improper testimony exaggerating the deceased’s fault, appellate courts may order new trials. Your attorney must anticipate appellate issues during trial and create a record that supports post-trial challenges if the verdict is unfavorable.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can my family recover compensation if my loved one was mostly at fault for the accident that killed them in Arizona?
Yes, Arizona follows pure comparative negligence under A.R.S. § 12-2505, meaning your family can recover damages even if your loved one was 99% at fault for the accident. The compensation you receive will be reduced by your loved one’s percentage of fault, so if they were 80% responsible, you would receive 20% of the total damages. This differs from many other states that bar recovery entirely when the deceased is 50% or 51% at fault.
How do insurance companies determine what percentage of fault to assign to my deceased family member?
Insurance adjusters review all available evidence including police reports, witness statements, photographs, medical records, toxicology reports, phone records, and accident reconstruction analyses to assign initial fault percentages. These early assessments are often biased toward minimizing the insurance company’s liability by exaggerating your loved one’s fault. Your attorney can challenge these assignments with independent investigations, expert analyses, and evidence that demonstrates the defendant’s greater responsibility.
What happens if multiple parties were at fault for my loved one’s death in Arizona?
When multiple parties share fault in a wrongful death, the jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party including your deceased loved one, and these percentages must total 100%. You can recover from each at-fault defendant based on their percentage of responsibility, but Arizona’s several liability rule under A.R.S. § 12-2506 means each defendant only pays their own share and cannot be required to pay another defendant’s portion even if that defendant cannot pay.
Can the fact that my loved one was not wearing a seatbelt reduce our wrongful death compensation?
Yes, Arizona law under A.R.S. § 28-909 allows evidence of seatbelt non-use to be introduced in civil cases, and juries can assign comparative fault based on failure to wear a seatbelt. Defense attorneys argue that injuries would have been less severe or non-fatal if the seatbelt had been worn. Your attorney must counter with accident reconstruction and medical evidence showing that seatbelt use would not have prevented death or that the defendant’s negligence was so severe that minor safety violations are comparatively insignificant.
How does comparative fault affect wrongful death settlements versus trial verdicts in Arizona?
Comparative fault percentages are negotiated during settlement discussions, with insurance companies typically assigning higher fault to the deceased than your attorney believes is justified. Settlement allows both sides to agree on fault percentages and avoid the uncertainty of jury determinations, which can be unpredictable. At trial, juries assign specific fault percentages that become final unless successfully appealed, creating risk for both sides but potentially resulting in more favorable fault allocations if your evidence is strong.
Does it matter if the person who caused my loved one’s death was arrested or charged with a crime?
Criminal charges or convictions for offenses like DUI, reckless driving, or vehicular manslaughter under Arizona law strengthen your wrongful death case by establishing that the defendant violated safety laws. However, defendants can still argue comparative fault even after criminal convictions, claiming your loved one’s actions contributed to the accident despite the defendant’s criminal conduct. Criminal convictions make it harder for defendants to deny liability, but they do not automatically eliminate comparative fault defenses in civil wrongful death cases.
Contact a Comparative Fault Wrongful Death Arizona Attorney Today
Navigating Arizona’s comparative fault system in wrongful death claims requires experienced legal counsel who understands how to minimize unfair blame placed on deceased victims while maximizing recovery from truly responsible parties. Insurance companies employ aggressive tactics to exaggerate your loved one’s fault percentages, knowing that every point of fault shifted away from their insured reduces their financial obligation to your family. Without skilled representation, you risk accepting settlements that drastically undervalue your claim based on inflated fault allegations.
Wrongful Death Trial Attorney LLC fights to protect your family’s rights throughout the comparative fault wrongful death arizona claims process. We conduct independent investigations that uncover evidence insurance companies overlook or ignore, retain expert witnesses who provide compelling testimony about actual fault allocation, and negotiate aggressively to counter lowball settlement offers based on exaggerated blame. Call (480) 420-0500 now or complete our online contact form to schedule a free consultation where we will evaluate your case, explain how comparative fault applies to your situation, and outline strategies to maximize your family’s compensation.