Comparative Fault in Personal Injury Lawsuits: How Shared Blame Affects Your Award

## What Is Comparative Fault in Personal Injury Law?

Comparative fault — also called comparative negligence — is a legal doctrine that allows courts and juries to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in an accident, including the injured plaintiff. The plaintiff's recovery is then reduced by their share of fault. For example, if you are found 20% at fault for a car accident that caused $100,000 in damages, you will recover only $80,000 under a comparative fault system. How fault affects your case depends entirely on which state's system applies to your claim.

Insurance adjusters deliberately argue that accident victims share fault to reduce payouts — even small percentage assignments can cost tens of thousands of dollars in large cases.

The Three Comparative Fault Systems Used Across the United States

Understanding your state's system is critical before evaluating any settlement offer.

• **Pure comparative fault (13 states including California, New York, Florida):** You can recover damages regardless of your percentage of fault — even if you are 99% at fault, you collect 1% of your damages. This system most benefits seriously at-fault plaintiffs.
• **Modified comparative fault — 50% rule (12 states including Colorado, Georgia, Maine):** You can recover damages only if you are less than 50% at fault; at 50% or more, you recover nothing
• **Modified comparative fault — 51% rule (21 states including Texas, Illinois, Pennsylvania):** You can recover damages only if you are 50% or less at fault; at 51% or more, you recover nothing
• **Pure contributory negligence (4 states: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC):** If you are even 1% at fault, you recover absolutely nothing — the harshest rule in the nation

Your attorney will aggressively challenge any fault percentage assigned to you by building evidence that demonstrates the defendant bore the primary responsibility for the accident.