English 
Spanish 
Car accidents are rarely simple, single-cause events. Often, collisions occurring at busy Bowling Green intersections—such as Campbell Lane and Veterans Memorial Lane—involve split-second actions from multiple drivers. If you were involved in a crash and worry that your own actions partly contributed to the incident, you might assume you are completely barred from recovering compensation.
Fortunately, Kentucky personal injury law protects injured victims even when shared fault is present. Under Kentucky’s pure comparative fault rule, you can still seek financial recovery regardless of your percentage of responsibility.
Understanding Kentucky’s Pure Comparative Fault Law (KRS 411.182)
Kentucky operates under a Pure Comparative Fault standard, established by the Kentucky Supreme Court in Hilen v. Hays and codified in KRS 411.182.
Under this law, liability in a personal injury case is allocated according to each party’s degree of fault. If a case goes to court, the judge or jury evaluates the evidence and assigns a percentage of fault to everyone involved. Your final financial award is reduced in direct proportion to your share of responsibility.
Comparative Fault Rules: Kentucky vs. Other States
To appreciate the fairness of Kentucky’s system, it helps to compare it to rules in neighboring states:
-
Contributory Negligence (Strict Standard): In a handful of states, if a plaintiff is found even 1% at fault for an accident, they are completely barred from recovering any damages.
-
Modified Comparative Fault (50% or 51% Bar): In many states, an injured party can only recover damages if their share of fault is less than 50% or 51%. If they cross that threshold, their right to recovery drops to zero.
-
Pure Comparative Fault (Kentucky Standard): Under KRS 411.182, there is no percentage bar. An injured driver can be 10%, 50%, or even 90% at fault and still legally recover compensation for the remaining percentage of fault attributed to the other driver.
How Pure Comparative Fault Works in Practice
Consider a scenario where Driver A is making a left turn across traffic on Scottsville Road. Driver B is speeding down the boulevard. Driver A turns in front of Driver B, resulting in a T-bone collision.
If a court determines that Driver A was 70% at fault for failing to yield the right-of-way, but Driver B was 30% at fault for speeding, the financial recovery is calculated accordingly:
-
If Driver B suffered $100,000 in total damages, their award is reduced by their 30% share of fault ($30,000). Driver B recovers $70,000.
-
If Driver A suffered severe injuries resulting in $200,000 in total damages, they can still recover 30% of their total losses from Driver B. Driver A receives $60,000.
Fighting Insurance Company Blame Tactics
Because every percentage point of fault directly reduces the check an insurance company has to write, defense adjusters aggressively attempt to shift blame onto injury victims. They may argue that you were distracted, driving too fast for conditions, or failed to take evasive action.
Overcoming these tactics requires solid objective evidence, including police crash reports, traffic camera footage, eyewitness testimony, and accident reconstruction analysis. Working with an experienced personal injury attorney ensures that fault is assigned fairly and your right to recovery is fiercely protected.