Michigan's modified comparative fault rule
Michigan uses modified comparative negligence for third-party auto cases. The jury assigns each party — including the plaintiff — a percentage of fault totaling 100%. Two statutes control the outcome:
- MCL 500.3135(2)(b) bars a plaintiff from recovering noneconomic damages if the plaintiff's own fault is greater than 50%.
- MCL 600.2959 reduces both economic and noneconomic damages in proportion to the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Worked example
Jury finds total damages of $200,000 and assigns you 30% of the fault. Your recovery is reduced by 30% — leaving $140,000. If the jury had put you at 60% fault instead, pain-and-suffering would be barred entirely, but excess medical and wage loss (economic damages) could still be recovered at 40% of full value.
PIP benefits are almost always safe
First-party PIP is separate from the fault fight. MCL 500.3105 pays PIP regardless of fault — even if you caused the crash. The narrow exceptions in MCL 500.3113 cover:
- Intentional infliction of injury.
- Occupying a vehicle taken unlawfully (car theft).
- Occupying an uninsured motor vehicle owned by you or a resident relative.
Ordinary negligence — running a red light, speeding, following too close — is not an exception. Your PIP claim survives even if the adjuster says otherwise.
How fault percentages are actually decided
Fault is a question of fact resolved by the jury based on the whole record. Courts and juries weigh:
Physical evidence
Skid marks, vehicle deformation, resting positions, black-box event data, and dashcam or intersection video usually carry more weight than either driver's memory.
Reconstruction and biomechanics
Experienced reconstruction experts calculate speeds, angles, and perception-reaction time to explain who could have avoided the crash. Biomechanical opinions can rebut the insurer's "low-speed no-injury" defense.
Rules of the road
Statutory violations — failing to yield, following too close, disobeying a signal, speeding — are strong evidence of negligence against the driver who violated the rule.
Distraction, impairment, and drugged / drunk driving
Cell-phone records, receipts, toxicology, and prior driving history often shift huge percentages of fault to the at-fault driver — even when initial appearances favored them.
Situations where "partially at fault" gets misread
- Left-turn crashes. Common misperception that the turning driver is automatically at fault. Speeding or red-light-running by the oncoming driver often flips the analysis.
- Rear-end crashes. Rear driver is presumed at fault, but sudden and unexpected stops, brake-check maneuvers, and last-clear-chance arguments can shift percentages.
- Passengers. Passengers are almost never at fault. Insurers still argue seat-belt nonuse to reduce damages under MCL 257.710e.
- Multiple defendants. Governmental defendants and joint-tortfeasor rules mean fault allocation is more complicated than the police report suggests.
Why fault allocation is worth fighting for
Every percentage point matters. On a $500,000 verdict, moving fault from 40% to 20% is worth $100,000. Insurers hire investigators and reconstruction experts to push your fault higher; you need the same firepower moving in the opposite direction.
Told the crash was your fault?
Insurers, police, and even other drivers frequently misread who was at fault. Let us look at the evidence and give you an honest read — free of charge and with zero obligation.