Montana uses modified comparative fault with 51% bar. Authority: Mont. Code § 27-1-702.
The Montana pattern jury instructions ask jurors to determine: (1) was the defendant negligent? (2) was the plaintiff negligent? (3) was each party\'s negligence a substantial factor in causing the injury? (4) what percentage of fault, totaling 100%, do you assign to each party?
The court applies the modified comparative fault (51% bar) formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
Montana follows the modern American approach to allocating fault in personal-injury cases: rather than treating any plaintiff fault as a complete bar (the old contributory-negligence rule), the jury assigns percentages and the recovery is reduced , or, in some states, eliminated past a threshold.
Montana's 51% modified-fault statute reduces verdicts in proportion to plaintiff fault up to 50%, then bars recovery at 51% and above. Compared with a strict 50% bar, Montana's rule is slightly more plaintiff-friendly at the threshold itself.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in Montana both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a Montana plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule.
| Verdict | Plaintiff fault | Net recovery | Reduction |
|---|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 | $10,000 |
| $250,000 | 25% | $187,500 | $62,500 |
| $500,000 | 49% | $255,000 | $245,000 |
| $500,000 | 50% | $250,000 | $250,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $0 | $1,000,000 |
Worked example: a Montana jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 10% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $90,000.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a Montana jury, with 25% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under Montana law (modified comparative fault (51% bar)), the final award is $187,500.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Montana and the jury assigns 49% fault to them. Applying Montana's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $255,000.
Worked example: a Montana jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 50% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $250,000.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in Montana and the jury assigns 60% fault to them. Applying Montana's modified comparative fault (51% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $0.
The settlement value of a Montana case depends not just on damages but on fault projection. Adjusters discount offers heavily when liability is contested and the rule allows a bar at some threshold. A plaintiff with a "75/25" liability case in a 50%-bar state settles differently than the same case in a pure-comparative state.
Voir dire and jury instructions in Montana comparative-fault cases shape outcomes as much as the underlying facts. Plaintiffs' counsel often spends opening arguments framing the plaintiff's actions as reasonable, knowing that even a moderate fault allocation can significantly reduce the verdict.
Montana comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 3 years from the date of injury (Mont. Code § 27-2-204). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
Montana applies modified comparative fault (51% bar). Montana uses modified comparative fault with 51% bar.
Montana bars recovery when the plaintiff is 51% or more at fault.
Montana jurors are presented with a special verdict form asking them to assign fault percentages totaling 100% to each party (and any non-party at fault under joint-tortfeasor rules). The trial court then applies the comparative-fault formula to compute the final recovery.
Yes. Montana juries can apportion fault among multiple defendants (and sometimes non-party tortfeasors). The treatment of joint and several liability , whether each defendant is liable only for their share or for the entire judgment if others are insolvent , varies by state statute.
Montana courts vary on the "seat-belt defense." Some states allow evidence of non-use as a fault factor; others (by statute or judicial rule) exclude it. Plaintiffs\' counsel should consult current Montana appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , Montana\'s comparative-fault rule applies across negligence claims, including medical malpractice. Some states adjust the framework for medmal cases (e.g., reducing the plaintiff-fault relevance because patients rarely contribute to their own injuries in the traditional sense), but the basic rule applies unless the statute carves out an exception.
In modified comparative fault (51% bar) Montana, the bar threshold becomes the focal point of settlement: defendants negotiate harder near the threshold, plaintiffs accept reduced offers to avoid the bar.
Last verified against primary sources on 2026-05-16.