- Sandeep Kourav
- Car Accidents
Almost every injury claim involves an argument about whether the injured person contributed to what happened. In Indiana, that argument has a hard edge, and it is the reason adjusters press fault so aggressively from the first phone call.
Indiana uses modified comparative fault. Your recovery is reduced by your percentage of responsibility, and if that percentage exceeds fifty, you recover nothing at all. An Indianapolis car accident lawyer can evaluate the evidence insurers use to assign fault and determine how Indiana’s comparative fault rule may affect your recovery.
How the Rule Works
A jury assigns a percentage of fault to each party involved, including the injured person. Damages are then reduced by the plaintiff’s share.
On a claim worth two hundred thousand dollars, being twenty percent at fault yields one hundred sixty thousand. Being 50% at fault yields $100,000. Being fifty-one percent at fault yields nothing.
That single percentage point is the entire case for claims near the line, and both sides know it. Indiana’s comparative fault rules make these percentage disputes especially important. It is why a defense that appears to be nitpicking is actually pursuing a strategy with a specific target.
The Comparison Includes Non-Parties
Indiana allows a defendant to name a non-party — someone not sued, who the defendant argues bears responsibility.
The jury then allocates fault to that non-party as well, which reduces the percentage assigned to the defendant. Because a non-party is not before the court, no judgment can be entered against them, and the fault assigned to them is simply unrecoverable.
This matters enormously. A defendant who successfully shifts 30% to a non-party reduces their own exposure by that amount, and the injured person absorbs the loss.
Identifying and suing every genuinely responsible party, rather than only the obvious one, is therefore part of protecting the claim, not simply finding more insurance.
Governmental Defendants Are Different
Indiana applies a separate framework to claims against governmental entities, and it is considerably less favorable.
Claims against the state, a city, a county or another governmental unit are generally governed by contributory negligence principles rather than comparative fault, which means any contributing fault by the injured person can bar the claim entirely.
That distinction is significant in cases involving road defects, government vehicles, or public property. A claim that would survive against a private defendant may fail entirely against a municipality on the same facts.
What Insurers Argue
- Traveling above the speed limit, even slightly
- Following more closely than was reasonable
- Distraction, established through phone records
- Failing to take evasive action a jury might believe was available
- Not wearing a seatbelt, where it affected the injuries
- For pedestrians and cyclists, crossing outside a marked crossing or riding against traffic
The recorded statement requested in the days after a crash is where these arguments come from. Saying you did not see the other vehicle, that you were running late, or simply apologizing, all reappear framed as admissions.
You are not obliged to give a recorded statement to the other driver’s insurer. Declining until you have advice is entirely proper.
How Fault Actually Gets Decided
Where a case settles, fault is negotiated based on each side’s assessment of how a jury would apportion it. Where it does not settle, a jury assigns the percentages, and the court applies them.
Jurors bring assumptions about who is usually responsible in particular scenarios, which is why establishing the physical facts matters more than characterizing the other driver’s conduct.
Mediation is common and frequently productive once the evidence has been developed. Both sides negotiating with a clear picture of the apportionment risk reach agreement far more often than parties negotiating on assumptions formed in the first weeks.
Damages Available in Indiana
Where fault is established, Indiana permits recovery across the full range of losses.
- Past and future medical expenses
- Past and future lost income and lost earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Mental anguish and emotional distress
- Permanent impairment and disfigurement
- Loss of consortium for a spouse
Punitive damages are available where the conduct was wilful and wanton, and Indiana caps them by formula while directing a substantial portion of any punitive award to the state rather than to the claimant.
Roundabouts Generate Their Own Disputes
Central Indiana has more roundabouts than almost anywhere else in the country, and roundabout crashes in Indianapolis raise questions of fault that ordinary intersections do not.
The recurring scenarios involve failure to yield on entry, lane selection within a multi-lane roundabout, and exiting across an adjacent lane. Because drivers frequently misunderstand which lane permits which exit, both parties often believe they had the right of way.
These cases turn on lane markings, signage, the pattern of physical damage, and any available camera footage. An adjuster’s initial assessment based on a brief report is not a reliable answer, and Vaughn A. Wamsley reviews these determinations closely; these are among the more successfully contested fault determinations.
Fault and Damages Are Separate Questions
A common confusion is treating fault and the value of the claim as one issue. They are decided separately and argued separately.
Fault determines the percentage. Damages determine the total figure to which that percentage is applied. An insurer may concede fault entirely while aggressively disputing value, or dispute fault while acknowledging serious injuries.
Understanding which argument is actually being made prevents wasted effort, and it clarifies what evidence matters at each stage.
Evidence That Decides Apportionment
- Vehicle positions, damage patterns, and debris photographed before anything moves
- Event data recorder information from the vehicles involved
- Traffic, business and residential camera footage near the scene
- Skid marks and roadway evidence, which fade quickly
- Independent witnesses identified before memories fade
- Cellphone records where distraction is alleged against either party
- Accident reconstruction where the physical evidence is genuinely contested
The crash report matters but is not decisive. An officer’s opinion on fault is generally not binding, and reports contain errors that go uncorrected because no one examines them critically.
Seatbelt Evidence and Mitigation
Indiana addresses the use of seatbelt evidence in injury claims by statute, and its admissibility is restricted in ways that differ from those of several neighboring states.
Where a defendant seeks to argue that restraint use would have reduced the injuries, that is a damages argument rather than an argument about causing the crash, and it is subject to those statutory limits.
A related argument concerns failure to mitigate — a claimant who declined recommended surgery, ignored restrictions, or returned to activity against advice. Whether that argument succeeds usually depends on whether the decision was reasonable, and documented reasons for any interruption in treatment are what answer it.
Settlement Offers That Arrive Early
Serious claims frequently attract an offer within weeks, before the medical picture is remotely clear.
Early offers are rarely generous. They are made because an injured person out of work and facing bills is at their most willing to accept, and because the full cost of the injury has not yet been documented.
Once a release is signed, the claim is over. If surgery becomes necessary six months later, or the injury proves permanent, there is no reopening it. The general rule is not to settle before reaching maximum medical improvement or at least having a reliable prognosis.
Deadlines
Indiana generally allows two years from the date of injury to file a personal injury lawsuit, and the same period applies to wrongful death claims measured from the date of death.
Claims against governmental entities carry much shorter notice requirements, and missing one can end a claim regardless of its merits.
Waiting also degrades a case independently of the deadline. Footage is overwritten within days, vehicles are repaired or salvaged with their data intact, and physical evidence at the scene disappears.
There is no cost to an initial conversation and no fee unless we recover for you. What an early call accomplishes is ensuring the evidence that decides apportionment is preserved while it still exists.
If the other side is already suggesting you share the blame for an Indianapolis crash, call Vaughn A. Wamsley before you speak with them again.