Most accidents aren’t entirely one person’s fault. A driver runs a red light, but the other driver was also speeding. A customer slips on a wet floor, but they were also looking at their phone. Real accidents involve real circumstances, and sometimes more than one party’s actions contributed to what happened.
South Dakota has a specific legal framework for sorting this out, and it directly affects how much compensation an injured person can recover. Understanding how it works before you settle a claim is genuinely important.
How Modified Comparative Fault Works in South Dakota
South Dakota follows a modified comparative fault system under South Dakota Codified Laws Section 20-9-2. The rule works like this: when an injured person is found partially responsible for the accident that caused their injuries, their compensation gets reduced by their percentage of fault.
So if a jury awards $200,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 20% at fault, they walk away with $160,000. The math is straightforward. The complications come in how fault gets assigned.
The “modified” part of the rule is where South Dakota differs from some other states. If the injured person is found to be 51% or more at fault, they recover nothing. The door closes entirely at that threshold. Below 51%, recovery is available but reduced proportionally. This is meaningfully different from states that follow pure comparative fault, where even a plaintiff found 90% responsible can recover 10% of their damages.
Why Insurance Companies Care About This Rule So Much
Fault allocation is a financial lever for insurance companies. Every percentage point of fault they can shift onto an injured plaintiff reduces what they owe. A case worth $300,000 at zero fault for the plaintiff becomes worth $240,000 if the insurer successfully argues 20% shared responsibility.
That’s a $60,000 difference from a single argument about percentages. Adjusters are trained to find and emphasize anything a plaintiff did that could be characterized as contributing to the accident. Speeding slightly. Failing to look before crossing. Not wearing appropriate footwear. These details get documented and used.
It’s one of the reasons recorded statements taken shortly after an accident are so problematic for injured people. You describe what happened as honestly as you can, in pain and under stress, and that description later gets parsed for anything that suggests you share blame.
How Fault Gets Determined
Fault percentages don’t emerge from thin air. They’re built from evidence and argued by each side. The types of evidence that shape fault allocation include:
- Police and accident reports documenting the facts at the scene
- Witness statements from people who saw what happened
- Surveillance or dashcam footage
- Physical evidence including skid marks, vehicle positions, and road conditions
- Expert testimony from accident reconstruction specialists
- Medical records that speak to whether a plaintiff’s condition contributed to their vulnerability
Each side presents its version of events, and a jury, mediator, or judge weighs the totality of the evidence to assign percentages. A well-documented case with strong evidence tends to produce more favorable fault assignments than one that relies primarily on a plaintiff’s word against a defendant’s.
How This Affects Settlement Negotiations
Comparative fault operates as a negotiating framework long before any trial. Insurance companies make initial offers based on their own internal assessment of how fault would likely be allocated if the case went to court. If they believe they can argue 30% plaintiff fault, their offer reflects a 30% reduction from what they think a jury would award.
Knowing your own case’s fault exposure before negotiations begin matters. A Spearfish personal injury lawyer evaluates the evidence on both sides, assesses what a realistic fault allocation looks like, and negotiates from an informed position rather than accepting whatever percentage an adjuster proposes.
What Happens When Multiple Defendants Share Fault
Comparative fault gets more involved when more than one defendant contributed to an accident. South Dakota allows fault to be distributed across multiple parties, and each defendant’s share of responsibility affects what they owe. Identifying every party whose negligence contributed to an injury and building the evidence that supports those assignments is part of building a complete personal injury case.
Loos, Sabers & Smith, LLP has been representing injured South Dakotans for over 60 years. If you were hurt in an accident near Spearfish and aren’t sure how fault might be allocated in your situation, reach out to a Spearfish personal injury lawyer to talk through the details and understand where your case stands.
