You were injured in an accident, but you weren’t entirely blameless. Maybe you were speeding when another driver ran a red light and hit you. Perhaps you were looking at your phone when you tripped on a broken sidewalk the city should have repaired. Your partial responsibility doesn’t automatically eliminate your right to compensation, but it does complicate matters. How your state handles shared fault will determine whether you can recover damages and how much you’ll receive.
Our friends at Seber Bulger Law deal with comparative negligence issues in nearly every case because shared fault is common in accidents. A birth injury lawyer familiar with your state’s specific negligence rules can explain exactly how partial fault affects your potential recovery and what percentage of blame you can bear while still collecting compensation.
Three Different Systems Control Shared Fault
States follow one of three approaches to handling cases where both parties contributed to an accident. These systems produce dramatically different outcomes for the same set of facts.
Pure Comparative Negligence
Thirteen states follow pure comparative negligence, the most forgiving system for plaintiffs. Under this rule, you can recover compensation no matter how much fault you bear. Your recovery is simply reduced by your percentage of responsibility.
If you’re 90% at fault and the defendant is 10% at fault in a case worth $100,000, you can still recover $10,000. If you’re 25% at fault, you recover $75,000. There’s no threshold beyond which you’re barred from recovery.
States using pure comparative negligence include:
- Alaska
- Arizona
- California
- Florida
- Kentucky
- Louisiana
- Mississippi
- Missouri
- New Mexico
- New York
- Rhode Island
- South Dakota
- Washington
This system focuses purely on proportional fault without cutoff thresholds.
Modified Comparative Negligence: 51% Bar Rule
Most states follow modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar. Under this approach, you can recover damages as long as you’re not more responsible than the defendant. If you’re 50% at fault or less, you can collect compensation reduced by your fault percentage. If you’re 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing.
Using the same $100,000 case example, if you’re 49% at fault, you recover $51,000. If you’re 50% at fault, you still recover $50,000. But if you’re 51% at fault, you get nothing.
States following the 51% bar rule include:
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- Connecticut
- Delaware
- Georgia
- Hawaii
- Idaho
- Illinois
- Indiana
- Iowa
- Kansas
- Louisiana
- Maine
- Massachusetts
- Michigan
- Minnesota
- Montana
- Nebraska
- Nevada
- New Hampshire
- New Jersey
- North Dakota
- Ohio
- Oklahoma
- Oregon
- Pennsylvania
- Rhode Island
- South Carolina
- Tennessee
- Texas
- Utah
- Vermont
- West Virginia
- Wisconsin
- Wyoming
This creates a strict threshold where being just 1% more responsible than the other party eliminates your recovery entirely.
Modified Comparative Negligence: 50% Bar Rule
A smaller group of states uses a 50% bar, which is slightly stricter than the 51% rule. You can only recover if you’re less than 50% at fault. Being exactly 50% responsible bars recovery.
States following the 50% bar include:
- Arkansas
- Colorado
- Georgia
- Idaho
- Kansas
- Maine
- Nebraska
- North Dakota
- Tennessee
- Utah
- West Virginia
In these states, if you’re 49% at fault, you recover damages reduced by that percentage. At 50% or higher, you get nothing.
Contributory Negligence: The Harshest Rule
Five jurisdictions still follow the extremely harsh contributory negligence rule. Under this doctrine, any fault on your part, even 1%, completely bars recovery.
If you’re 1% responsible and the defendant is 99% responsible, you recover nothing. This all-or-nothing approach makes it very difficult for plaintiffs to recover in any case involving shared fault.
Only these jurisdictions follow pure contributory negligence:
- Alabama
- Maryland
- North Carolina
- Virginia
- District of Columbia
Insurance companies in these states aggressively argue that plaintiffs bear at least some minimal fault to completely defeat claims.
How Fault Percentages Get Determined
Juries or judges assign fault percentages based on all evidence presented. They consider police reports, witness testimony, traffic laws, accident reconstruction, and each party’s actions leading to the accident.
Common factors affecting fault allocation include:
- Traffic violations like speeding or running red lights
- Distracted driving
- Following too closely
- Failure to maintain proper lookout
- Intoxication or impairment
- Pedestrian violations like jaywalking
- Property owner negligence in maintaining premises
- Failure to warn of known hazards
Both sides present evidence and arguments about why the other party bears greater responsibility. The factfinder then assigns percentages that total 100%.
Insurance Companies Exploit Comparative Negligence
Defense attorneys and insurance adjusters use comparative negligence strategically to reduce payouts. Even in pure comparative negligence states, they argue for higher fault percentages against plaintiffs to reduce the amount owed.
In modified comparative negligence states, adjusters aggressively push plaintiff fault above the bar threshold to eliminate liability entirely. They’ll claim you were 52% at fault to avoid paying anything rather than accepting 48% fault and paying a reduced amount.
Small Fault Percentages Still Matter
Even minor fault assignments significantly impact recovery. A 10% fault finding in a $200,000 case costs you $20,000. A 25% finding costs $50,000.
Insurance companies fight over every percentage point because each point represents real money. What might seem like splitting hairs over whether you were 35% or 40% at fault actually means a $10,000 difference in a $200,000 case.
Documenting Your Case Reduces Your Fault Percentage
Strong evidence showing the other party’s negligence and your reasonable behavior helps minimize your assigned fault. Witnesses, photographs, video footage, and testimony all influence how fault gets divided.
Taking steps immediately after an accident to document conditions, get witness information, and preserve evidence protects you from exaggerated fault claims later.
Comparative Fault Varies By Claim Type
Some states apply different comparative negligence rules to different types of claims. Product liability cases might follow different rules than car accidents. Workplace injuries have separate workers’ compensation rules that don’t use traditional comparative negligence.
Understanding which system applies to your specific type of claim requires knowing your state’s detailed laws.
Settlement Negotiations Center On Fault
Most personal injury cases settle before trial, and comparative negligence dominates settlement negotiations. The primary dispute is often not whether you were injured or how much your damages are worth, but what percentage of fault you bear.
Defense attorneys argue for higher plaintiff fault to justify lower settlement offers. Your attorney argues for lower plaintiff fault to demand higher settlements. These percentage battles determine final settlement amounts in shared fault cases.
Protecting Your Recovery Rights
Comparative negligence rules dramatically affect whether you can recover compensation and how much you’ll receive when you share fault for an accident. The specific system your state follows makes the difference between recovering substantial compensation, reduced compensation, or nothing at all. We analyze how your state’s comparative negligence laws apply to your specific situation and fight to minimize your assigned fault percentage while maximizing your recovery. If you’ve been injured in an accident where fault might be shared, contact our team to discuss how we can protect your right to fair compensation under your state’s negligence rules.