North Dakota uses modified comparative fault with 50% bar. Authority: N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02.
The North Dakota 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 (50% bar) formula to those percentages after the verdict form is returned.
Comparative negligence in North Dakota is the single most important doctrine for predicting case value. Lawyers price cases based on liability strength, but the operative variable on the verdict form is the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Under North Dakota's modified-comparative rule, a 49%-at-fault plaintiff with a $1,000,000 verdict recovers $510,000. A 50%-at-fault plaintiff with the same verdict recovers $0. One percentage point converts to a million dollars.
Pre-trial settlement valuation and trial strategy in North Dakota both turn on these numbers. Below: five scenarios at common verdict sizes and fault percentages, with the recovery a North Dakota plaintiff would actually receive under the state\'s modified comparative fault (50% 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% | $0 | $500,000 |
| $1,000,000 | 60% | $0 | $1,000,000 |
Worked example: a North Dakota jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 10% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $90,000.
Scenario: a slip-and-fall plaintiff is awarded $1,000,000 by a North Dakota jury, with 25% of fault attributed to them for not watching where they walked. Under North Dakota law (modified comparative fault (50% bar)), the final award is $187,500.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in North Dakota and the jury assigns 49% fault to them. Applying North Dakota's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $255,000.
Worked example: a North Dakota jury awards a plaintiff $500,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff 50% at fault. Under the state's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule, the plaintiff actually recovers $0.
Practical illustration: an injured driver wins a $200,000 verdict in North Dakota and the jury assigns 60% fault to them. Applying North Dakota's modified comparative fault (50% bar) rule yields a net recovery of $0.
Plaintiffs' attorneys in North Dakota screen cases with the comparative-fault rule front of mind. A case where the defense can credibly argue the plaintiff was 40%+ at fault gets a different intake decision in a 50%-bar state than in a pure-comparative state.
Voir dire and jury instructions in North Dakota 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.
North Dakota comparative-negligence rules only matter if you file on time. The state\'s personal-injury statute of limitations is 6 years from the date of injury (N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16). Even an airtight liability case is dismissed with prejudice if the complaint is filed late.
North Dakota applies modified comparative fault (50% bar). North Dakota uses modified comparative fault with 50% bar.
North Dakota bars recovery when the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
North Dakota 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. North Dakota 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.
North Dakota 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 North Dakota appellate decisions before deciding how to handle the issue at trial.
Generally yes , North Dakota\'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 (50% bar) North Dakota, 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.