The adjuster's favorite sentence is "our investigation shows you share responsibility for this accident." People hear it and assume the case is over. In New Mexico, it is not. This article explains the rule, the exceptions, and why the first recorded phone call matters so much.
Pure comparative negligence, in one paragraph
In 1981 the New Mexico Supreme Court threw out the old all-or-nothing rule in Scott v. Rizzo and adopted pure comparative negligence. A jury assigns each party a percentage of fault, and each injured person recovers the share of their damages that was someone else's fault. If your damages are two hundred thousand dollars and you were twenty-five percent to blame, you recover one hundred fifty thousand. There is no cutoff. Some states bar recovery at fifty or fifty-one percent. New Mexico does not.
Each defendant pays its own share
A year after Scott, the Supreme Court decided Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply and ended joint and several liability for ordinary negligence. The Legislature codified that in Section 41-3A-1 in 1987. Under several liability, a defendant found thirty percent at fault pays thirty percent, even if the seventy percent defendant is uninsured or bankrupt. That makes it essential to identify every responsible party early: the driver, the employer, the trucking company, the bar that overserved, the contractor who left the hazard.
The statute keeps joint and several liability for a few situations. Intentional wrongdoing. Vicarious liability, such as an employer answering for an employee. Product liability claims against manufacturers and sellers. And a public policy category the courts have applied to inherently dangerous work. The Supreme Court in Saiz v. Belen School District held a party who hires a contractor for inherently dangerous work is jointly liable when precautions are not taken.
What "fault" actually means at trial
Fault is a jury question. The jury hears the evidence and fills in percentages on a verdict form. That means the percentages are not fixed by the police report, the adjuster's letter, or a citation. A ticket is one piece of evidence, not a verdict. In Rodriguez v. Williams, the Court of Appeals allowed a plaintiff whose blood alcohol was .076 to recover from a drunk driver who ran a red light, because comparative fault, not a blanket bar, governs.
Common facts insurers use to argue for a share of fault against injured people in our area include:
- Speed a few miles over the limit on Interstate 40
- No seat belt, even though New Mexico law limits how that can be used
- Crossing outside a marked crosswalk on Route 66 in Gallup
- Riding a motorcycle without a helmet
- Walking on the shoulder of US 491 at night
Every one of those is an argument, not an outcome, and every one can be answered with evidence: sight lines, lighting, the other driver's phone records, the physical damage pattern, and reconstruction.
Why the recorded statement matters
Insurers know that fault is assigned by percentages, so their first goal is to move the needle. A recorded statement taken within days, while you are on pain medication and have not seen the police report, is where that happens. "I guess I could have seen him sooner" becomes fifteen percent. Fifteen percent of a six-figure claim is real money. You are not required to give the other driver's insurer a recorded statement, and you should not do it without a lawyer.
Comparative fault in wrongful death and passenger cases
Passengers are rarely at fault, which makes their claims strong against every driver involved, including the driver of the car they were in. In wrongful death cases, the fault of the person who died reduces the family's recovery the same way it would have reduced the deceased's own claim.
Settlements with one defendant do not reduce the others' shares
Because each defendant pays only its percentage, a settlement with one does not cut what the others owe. The Court of Appeals confirmed this in Hinger v. Parker & Parsley Petroleum, reversing a judge who reduced a verdict by earlier settlements. This is one reason experienced counsel resolves defendants strategically rather than all at once.
What this means for you
Being told you were partly at fault is a negotiating position, not a legal conclusion. The right response is to gather evidence, identify every responsible party, and be ready to let a McKinley County jury decide the percentages. That readiness is what moves insurers off their opening number. Keeler & Keeler has been trying injury cases from our office in Gallup for more than twenty years. If an adjuster is telling you the crash was your fault, call (505) 722-5608 for a free review, or read more about how we handle car accident claims and the results we have obtained.
General information about New Mexico law, not legal advice for your case.
