Skip to content
State law reference

Comparative negligence by state

If you were partly at fault for a crash, your state's rule decides how much you lose. 26 states use the 51% bar, 10 the 50% bar and 9 pure comparative fault, while 5 keep contributory negligence.

Checked against official sources November 5, 202651 cited sourcesHow we calculate

The rules

Pure comparative negligence (9)

Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and you can recover something even if you were mostly to blame.

Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington

Modified comparative negligence, 51% bar (26)

Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and you recover nothing if you were more at fault than the other side (51% or more). At exactly 50% you still recover half.

Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin, Wyoming

Modified comparative negligence, 50% bar (10)

Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and you recover nothing if you were at least as much at fault as the other side (50% or more).

Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Tennessee, Utah

Contributory negligence (5)

If you were even slightly at fault, you can be barred from recovering anything, subject to narrow exceptions such as last clear chance.

Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia

Slight/gross negligence comparison (1)

You recover only if your negligence was slight and the other side's was gross by comparison, and your damages are reduced for your share.

South Dakota

What you recover

On $100,000 of damages:

Your faultPure comparativeModified (51% bar)Modified (50% bar)ContributorySlight/gross
0%$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000$100,000
10%$90,000$90,000$90,000$0$90,000
30%$70,000$70,000$70,000$0$70,000
50%$50,000$50,000$0$0$0
51%$49,000$0$0$0$0
80%$20,000$0$0$0$0

Rule by state

StateRuleLaw
AlabamaContributoryAlabama common law (e.g., Golden v. McCurry, 392 So. 2d 815 (Ala. 1980); Williams v. Delta Int'l Machinery Corp., 619 So. 2d 1330 (Ala. 1993))
AlaskaPure comparativeAS 09.17.060
ArizonaPure comparativeA.R.S. 12-2505(A)
ArkansasModified (50% bar)Ark. Code Ann. 16-64-122(b)
CaliforniaPure comparativeLi v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, construing Civ. Code 1714(a)
ColoradoModified (50% bar)C.R.S. 13-21-111(1)
ConnecticutModified (51% bar)Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572h(b)
DelawareModified (51% bar)10 Del. C. 8132
District of ColumbiaContributoryCommon law; exception in D.C. Code 50-2204.52 (Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act)
FloridaModified (51% bar)Fla. Stat. 768.81(6)
GeorgiaModified (50% bar)O.C.G.A. 51-12-33(g)
HawaiiModified (51% bar)HRS 663-31(a)
IdahoModified (50% bar)Idaho Code 6-801
IllinoisModified (51% bar)735 ILCS 5/2-1116
IndianaModified (51% bar)IC 34-51-2-6
IowaModified (51% bar)Iowa Code 668.3(1)(a)
KansasModified (50% bar)K.S.A. 60-258a(a)
KentuckyPure comparativeKRS 411.182; Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984)
LouisianaModified (51% bar)La. Civ. Code art. 2323(A)(2), as amended by Acts 2025, No. 15 (HB 431), eff. Jan. 1, 2026
MaineModified (50% bar)14 M.R.S. sec. 156
MarylandContributoryCommon law; Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013)
MassachusettsModified (51% bar)M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85
MichiganModified (51% bar)MCL 500.3135(2)(b) (motor vehicle tort claims); MCL 600.2959 (general rule)
MinnesotaModified (51% bar)Minn. Stat. 604.01, subd. 1
MississippiPure comparativeMiss. Code Ann. 11-7-15
MissouriPure comparativeGustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (judicial adoption of pure comparative fault); RSMo 537.765 applies pure comparative fault to products liability
MontanaModified (51% bar)Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-702
NebraskaModified (50% bar)Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,185.09
NevadaModified (51% bar)NRS 41.141(1)
New HampshireModified (51% bar)RSA 507:7-d
New JerseyModified (51% bar)N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1
New MexicoPure comparativeScott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682 (adopting pure comparative negligence); NMSA 1978, 41-3A-1 (several liability by ratio of fault, including plaintiffs)
New YorkModified (51% bar)N.Y. CPLR 1411(b), added by Part EE, sec. 3 of S.9008-C/A.10008-C (FY2027 budget, 2026)
North CarolinaContributoryCommon law contributory negligence; N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-139 (burden of proof)
North DakotaModified (50% bar)N.D.C.C. 32-03.2-02
OhioModified (51% bar)R.C. 2315.33
OklahomaModified (51% bar)23 O.S. 13
OregonModified (51% bar)ORS 31.600(1)
PennsylvaniaModified (51% bar)42 Pa.C.S. 7102(a)
Rhode IslandPure comparativeR.I. Gen. Laws 9-20-4
South CarolinaModified (51% bar)Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991) (judicially adopted; no statute), as quoted in Lampley v. Hulon, S.C. Ct. App. Op. No. 5798 (Feb. 3, 2021)
South DakotaSlight/grossSDCL 20-9-2
TennesseeModified (50% bar)McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (judicially adopted); Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482, 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), as quoted in Stamper v. Miller, No. E2025-01304-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2026)
TexasModified (51% bar)Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 33.001
UtahModified (50% bar)Utah Code 78B-5-818(2)
VermontModified (51% bar)12 V.S.A. 1036
VirginiaContributoryCommon law; Ponirakis v. Choi, 262 Va. 119, 124-25 (2001), as cited in Hazelwood v. Lawyer Garage, LLC, Record No. 1374-23-1 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2024) (published)
WashingtonPure comparativeRCW 4.22.005
West VirginiaModified (51% bar)W. Va. Code 55-7-13a to 55-7-13d (enacted 2015, Enr. Com. Sub. H.B. 2002); bar rule in 55-7-13c(c)
WisconsinModified (51% bar)Wis. Stat. 895.045(1)
WyomingModified (51% bar)W.S. 1-1-109(b)
Checked against each state's statute or controlling court decision, November 5, 2026.

How fault is decided

  • Traffic law violations: running a light, speeding or following too closely usually puts most of the fault on that driver.
  • Police report: not binding, but adjusters lean on it, especially citations and diagrams.
  • Photos, video and vehicle damage: where the cars were hit says a lot about who had the right of way.
  • Witnesses and statements: including anything you said at the scene or to the other driver's insurer.

See how fault changes your own numbers in the settlement calculator.

Frequently asked questions

What is comparative negligence?

It is the rule that reduces your damages by your own share of fault. If a jury finds your damages are $100,000 and you were 20% at fault, you recover $80,000. States differ on whether you can recover at all once your share passes 50%.

What is the difference between the 50% and 51% bar rules?

Both bar you when your fault gets too high, but the line differs by one point. Under the 50% bar you recover nothing if you were 50% or more at fault. Under the 51% bar you can still recover at exactly 50%, and are barred only at 51% or more.

Which states still use contributory negligence?

Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia. In these places, being even slightly at fault can bar you from recovering anything, although doctrines such as last clear chance can help.

Who decides the percentages of fault?

In negotiations, the adjusters for each side; if the case goes to trial, the jury. Police reports, photos, witness statements, vehicle data and traffic law violations drive the numbers.

Does comparative negligence apply to insurance claims or only lawsuits?

Insurers apply the same rule when they value a claim, because it is what a court would do. That is why an adjuster may offer less by arguing you were partly at fault.

Sources

Checked November 5, 2026.

  1. Alabama: Alabama common law (e.g., Golden v. McCurry, 392 So. 2d 815 (Ala. 1980); Williams v. Delta Int'l Machinery Corp., 619 So. 2d 1330 (Ala. 1993))
  2. Alaska: AS 09.17.060
  3. Arizona: A.R.S. 12-2505(A)
  4. Arkansas: Ark. Code Ann. 16-64-122(b)
  5. California: Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804, construing Civ. Code 1714(a)
  6. Colorado: C.R.S. 13-21-111(1)
  7. Connecticut: Conn. Gen. Stat. 52-572h(b)
  8. Delaware: 10 Del. C. 8132
  9. District of Columbia: Common law; exception in D.C. Code 50-2204.52 (Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act)
  10. Florida: Fla. Stat. 768.81(6)
  11. Georgia: O.C.G.A. 51-12-33(g)
  12. Hawaii: HRS 663-31(a)
  13. Idaho: Idaho Code 6-801
  14. Illinois: 735 ILCS 5/2-1116
  15. Indiana: IC 34-51-2-6
  16. Iowa: Iowa Code 668.3(1)(a)
  17. Kansas: K.S.A. 60-258a(a)
  18. Kentucky: KRS 411.182; Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984)
  19. Louisiana: La. Civ. Code art. 2323(A)(2), as amended by Acts 2025, No. 15 (HB 431), eff. Jan. 1, 2026
  20. Maine: 14 M.R.S. sec. 156
  21. Maryland: Common law; Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013)
  22. Massachusetts: M.G.L. c. 231, sec. 85
  23. Michigan: MCL 500.3135(2)(b) (motor vehicle tort claims); MCL 600.2959 (general rule)
  24. Minnesota: Minn. Stat. 604.01, subd. 1
  25. Mississippi: Miss. Code Ann. 11-7-15
  26. Missouri: Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. banc 1983) (judicial adoption of pure comparative fault); RSMo 537.765 applies pure comparative fault to products liability
  27. Montana: Mont. Code Ann. 27-1-702
  28. Nebraska: Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,185.09
  29. Nevada: NRS 41.141(1)
  30. New Hampshire: RSA 507:7-d
  31. New Jersey: N.J.S.A. 2A:15-5.1
  32. New Mexico: Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682 (adopting pure comparative negligence); NMSA 1978, 41-3A-1 (several liability by ratio of fault, including plaintiffs)
  33. New York: N.Y. CPLR 1411(b), added by Part EE, sec. 3 of S.9008-C/A.10008-C (FY2027 budget, 2026)
  34. North Carolina: Common law contributory negligence; N.C. Gen. Stat. 1-139 (burden of proof)
  35. North Dakota: N.D.C.C. 32-03.2-02
  36. Ohio: R.C. 2315.33
  37. Oklahoma: 23 O.S. 13
  38. Oregon: ORS 31.600(1)
  39. Pennsylvania: 42 Pa.C.S. 7102(a)
  40. Rhode Island: R.I. Gen. Laws 9-20-4
  41. South Carolina: Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991) (judicially adopted; no statute), as quoted in Lampley v. Hulon, S.C. Ct. App. Op. No. 5798 (Feb. 3, 2021)
  42. South Dakota: SDCL 20-9-2
  43. Tennessee: McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) (judicially adopted); Grandstaff v. Hawks, 36 S.W.3d 482, 493 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000), as quoted in Stamper v. Miller, No. E2025-01304-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 2026)
  44. Texas: Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code 33.001
  45. Utah: Utah Code 78B-5-818(2)
  46. Vermont: 12 V.S.A. 1036
  47. Virginia: Common law; Ponirakis v. Choi, 262 Va. 119, 124-25 (2001), as cited in Hazelwood v. Lawyer Garage, LLC, Record No. 1374-23-1 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 6, 2024) (published)
  48. Washington: RCW 4.22.005
  49. West Virginia: W. Va. Code 55-7-13a to 55-7-13d (enacted 2015, Enr. Com. Sub. H.B. 2002); bar rule in 55-7-13c(c)
  50. Wisconsin: Wis. Stat. 895.045(1)
  51. Wyoming: W.S. 1-1-109(b)