Comparative negligence · 51 jurisdictions

How each U.S. state allocates fault between plaintiff and defendant.

Comparative-negligence rules determine how much of a personal-injury verdict the injured plaintiff actually recovers. The same $1,000,000 verdict can produce $0 in one state and $510,000 in another, depending on the state's fault-allocation rule. This hub maps every jurisdiction.

Slight versus gross (1)

Plaintiff recovers if their negligence was "slight" compared to defendant's "gross" negligence.

Why this rule is the most consequential doctrine in your case

Two plaintiffs with identical $1,000,000 verdicts can walk away with wildly different recoveries depending on the comparative-fault rule in the jurisdiction. A pure-comparative-state plaintiff found 40% at fault keeps $600,000. A modified-50% plaintiff found 50% at fault keeps zero. A pure-contributory plaintiff found 1% at fault keeps zero. The rule is not a marginal adjustment; it is the framework that determines whether your case has economic value at all.

Defense lawyers in modified-fault states fight to push plaintiff fault percentages above the bar threshold because a one-percentage-point movement can convert a million-dollar verdict into zero. Plaintiffs' lawyers respond by documenting fault evidence aggressively from day one. The dollar stakes of the comparative-fault rule explain why evidence preservation, witness statements, and accident reconstruction matter so much.

Full 51-state table

StateRuleBar atStatute / authority
Alabama pure contributory Any fault Williams v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp. View
Alaska pure None Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 View
Arizona pure None Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505 View
Arkansas modified 50 percent 50% Ark. Code § 16-64-122 View
California pure None Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) View
Colorado modified 50 percent 50% Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111 View
Connecticut modified 51 percent 51% Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h View
Delaware modified 50 percent 50% Del. Code tit. 10 § 8132 View
Florida modified 50 percent 50% Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (amended 2023 View
Georgia modified 50 percent 50% O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 View
Hawaii modified 51 percent 51% Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31 View
Idaho modified 50 percent 50% Idaho Code § 6-801 View
Illinois modified 51 percent 51% 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 View
Indiana modified 51 percent 51% Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6 View
Iowa modified 51 percent 51% Iowa Code § 668.3 View
Kansas modified 50 percent 50% Kan. Stat. § 60-258a View
Kentucky pure None Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182 View
Louisiana pure None La. Civ. Code art. 2323 View
Maine modified 50 percent 50% Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 14 § 156 View
Maryland pure contributory Any fault Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia View
Massachusetts modified 51 percent 51% Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231 § 85 View
Michigan modified 51 percent w noneconomic bar 51% Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959 View
Minnesota modified 51 percent 51% Minn. Stat. § 604.01 View
Mississippi pure None Miss. Code § 11-7-15 View
Missouri pure None Gustafson v. Benda View
Montana modified 51 percent 51% Mont. Code § 27-1-702 View
Nebraska modified 50 percent 50% Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21 View
Nevada modified 51 percent 51% Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.141 View
New Hampshire modified 51 percent 51% N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:7-d View
New Jersey modified 51 percent 51% N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.1 View
New Mexico pure None Scott v. Rizzo (1981) View
New York pure None N.Y. CPLR § 1411 View
North Carolina pure contributory Any fault Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp. View
North Dakota modified 50 percent 50% N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02 View
Ohio modified 51 percent 51% Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33 View
Oklahoma modified 50 percent 50% Okla. Stat. tit. 23 § 13 View
Oregon modified 51 percent 51% Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.600 View
Pennsylvania modified 51 percent 51% 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102 View
Rhode Island pure None R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 View
South Carolina modified 51 percent 51% Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co. View
South Dakota slight gross non_slight% S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2 View
Tennessee modified 50 percent 50% McIntyre v. Balentine (1992) View
Texas modified 51 percent 51% Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001 View
Utah modified 50 percent 50% Utah Code § 78B-5-818 View
Vermont modified 51 percent 51% Vt. Stat. tit. 12 § 1036 View
Virginia pure contributory Any fault Baskett v. Banks View
Washington pure None Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.005 View
Washington DC pure contributory Any fault Wingfield v. People's Drug Store View
West Virginia modified 50 percent 50% Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co. View
Wisconsin modified 51 percent 51% Wis. Stat. § 895.045 View
Wyoming modified 50 percent 50% Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109 View

How comparative-fault rules evolved in the United States

Until the mid-20th century, every U.S. state followed the strict English common-law rule of contributory negligence: any plaintiff fault, even 1%, was a complete bar to recovery. The rule was so harsh that juries routinely refused to find for the defendant on liability if they thought it would deprive a sympathetic plaintiff of compensation, leading to verdicts that ignored the law. Beginning in the 1970s, most states reformed the rule by adopting some form of comparative negligence.

The reform took three forms. Pure comparative states (about 13 jurisdictions, including California, New York, and Florida until 2023) allow recovery even when the plaintiff is 99% at fault. Modified comparative states with a 50% bar (Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, and others) allow recovery only if plaintiff fault is less than 50%. Modified comparative states with a 51% bar (the largest group, including Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas, and many others) allow recovery if plaintiff fault is 50% or less.

Four jurisdictions still apply pure contributory negligence: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. In these jurisdictions, the harsh common-law rule survives, and personal-injury plaintiffs face substantially higher case-selection screening because even minor fault can defeat the entire claim. Plaintiffs' attorneys in pure-contributory jurisdictions decline cases with credible plaintiff-fault evidence that they would have taken in any comparative-fault jurisdiction.

Recent legislative activity has continued to reshape the landscape. Florida's 2023 HB 837 moved the state from pure comparative to modified 50% comparative fault. Louisiana's 2024 prescription amendment increased the personal-injury filing window, indirectly affecting the fault-allocation timeline. Tort-reform legislation remains a politically active area in most state legislatures, so the comparative-fault rule applicable to your case may have changed recently and may change again in the next legislative session.

Informational only

The rules above describe each state's default comparative-fault doctrine for negligence-based personal-injury claims. Some claim types (medical malpractice, products liability) have modified rules in some states. Consult an attorney licensed in your state for advice on a specific case.