Comparative Fault in Slip and Fall Premises Liability Cases

## How Comparative Fault Affects Your Slip and Fall Claim

When a slip and fall accident occurs, defense attorneys and insurance companies almost always argue that the injured victim shares some responsibility for what happened. This legal concept — comparative fault or comparative negligence — can significantly reduce the amount of compensation you receive. Understanding how your state handles shared fault is essential to setting realistic expectations for your premises liability claim.

Insurance adjusters routinely assign inflated fault percentages to injured claimants as a negotiating tactic to justify lower settlement offers. An attorney can effectively challenge these assessments.

Types of Comparative Fault Rules Across the United States

The rules governing comparative fault vary considerably from state to state, and the differences can be outcome-determinative in your case.

• Pure comparative negligence: In states like California, New York, and Florida, you can recover compensation even if you are 99% at fault — though your award is reduced proportionally by your percentage of fault
• Modified comparative negligence (51% bar): Most common rule; you may recover only if your fault is below 51%. If found 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing
• Modified comparative negligence (50% bar): Some states bar recovery if your fault equals or exceeds 50%
• Pure contributory negligence: The harshest rule, still applied in Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and D.C. — any fault on your part, no matter how small, bars all recovery

Common arguments used to assign fault to slip and fall victims include wearing inappropriate footwear, being distracted by a phone, ignoring posted warning signs, or entering areas marked as restricted. Your attorney counters these arguments with evidence that the hazard was unreasonably dangerous regardless of the circumstances.