In scenarios where both drivers share fault in a traffic collision, the compulsory motor insurance framework limits each party to reclaiming at most half of their eligible losses. This principle was explained by Sergei Radko, a lawyer associated with the Freedom of Automobile Choice movement, during a discussion with socialbites.ca.
Radko noted that even though compulsory auto insurance applies in such cases, the practical outcome is that affected drivers typically recover 50 percent of the damages if each person is deemed a victim of the incident. He emphasized that this partial recovery reflects the shared liability and the rules governing what the insurance system covers when fault is split between drivers.
The legal expert also pointed out that pursuing the remainder of the damage through court action against the other party is unlikely to succeed. In his assessment, if both drivers bear culpability, the court is likely to conclude that the fault lies with the other driver, resulting in the claim being dismissed on that basis.
Radko’s explanations underscore a key nuance in no-fault or mixed-fault insurance regimes: even when the insurance scheme triggers compensation, proportional fault can cap recovery, leaving claimants with only a portion of their full losses and with limited avenues for recourse against the other driver after a court decision. This framework aims to balance liability while preventing litigation from spiraling into full liability assignments in every two-party accident.
In practical terms, drivers involved in such incidents should document all damages, preserve accident evidence, and promptly notify their insurers to ensure eligibility for any available benefits. They should also understand that a claim for the total amount of losses may not be feasible if shared fault is established, and they should seek guidance from a qualified attorney to navigate potential settlements or alternative remedies within the jurisdiction’s insurance structure. The conversation around fault assessment and recovery highlights the importance of clear evidence, prompt reporting, and realistic expectations about what the insurance system will payout when fault is not exclusively assigned to one party. A careful, informed approach can help individuals make better decisions in the wake of an accident and avoid pursuing unattainable full compensation through the courts.
A note exists regarding dangerous methods to warm up a frozen car that should be treated separately and with caution, as it does not relate directly to insurance fault rules.