Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey

Most personal injury cases rely on a theory of negligence. This means that the plaintiff must prove that the defendant failed to use the appropriate level of care under the circumstances, and this caused the plaintiff’s injuries. However, some car accidents, slip and falls, or other accidents have multiple causes. Both the plaintiff and the defendant may bear some fault to varying degrees.

All but one of the states has chosen one of the following three approaches for victims who were partly at fault for their injuries:

Contributory negligence: the plaintiff cannot recover damages if they were at fault to any degree
Pure comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault
Modified comparative negligence: the plaintiff can recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault if their fault is not 50 or 51 percent (varies by state) or greater

South Dakota has adopted a unique fourth approach that involves considering whether the plaintiff’s fault was “slight” compared to the defendant’s fault.

Over 30 states use some form of modified comparative negligence, while about a dozen states use pure comparative negligence. Only a few states use contributory negligence. Click on a state below to find out which approach it uses and explore the relevant statute or case law. If you were injured in an accident for which you may have been partly at fault, you should promptly consult a personal injury lawyer for guidance on your potential legal rights and options.

Alabama Negligence Law

Alabama uses a contributory negligence model.

Alabama Rule of Civil Procedure 8(c) lists contributory negligence as an affirmative defense. The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that contributory negligence is a complete defense to an action based on negligence, although it is not a defense to a claim based on wanton misconduct. Proving the defense involves showing that the plaintiff had knowledge of the condition, had an appreciation of the danger under the surrounding circumstances, and failed to exercise reasonable care by placing themselves in the way of danger.

Alaska Negligence Law

Alaska uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Alaska Statutes Section 09.17.060 provides that the contributory fault of the plaintiff proportionately diminishes the amount of compensatory damages for the injury attributable to their contributory fault, but it does not bar recovery.

Arizona Negligence Law

Arizona uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Arizona Revised Statutes Section 12-2505 provides that the defense of contributory negligence does not bar an action, but the full damages will be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant’s fault that proximately caused the injury or death. There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of a claimant who has intentionally, willfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or death.

Arkansas Negligence Law

Arkansas uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Arkansas Code Section 16-64-122 provides that liability will be determined by comparing the fault attributable to the plaintiff with the fault attributable to the party from which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages. If the fault attributable to the plaintiff is less than the fault attributable to that party, the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of their damages after they have been reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. On the other hand, if the fault attributable to the plaintiff is equal to or greater than the fault attributable to the party from which the plaintiff seeks to recover damages, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages.

California Negligence Law

California uses a pure comparative negligence model.

The California Supreme Court has ruled that the state must follow a system in which liability for harm will be shouldered by those whose negligence caused the harm in direct proportion to their respective fault. Thus, the contributory negligence of an injured person will not bar their recovery, but the damages awarded will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person recovering the damages.

Colorado Negligence Law

Colorado uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Colorado Code Section 13-21-111 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery in an action to recover damages for negligence, as long as the negligence was not as great as the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought. Any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the person for whose injury, damage, or death recovery is made. Meanwhile, the Colorado Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff may recover damages as long as the combined fault of all named tort-feasors, regardless of whether they are joined as defendants or designated as non-parties, is greater than the fault attributable to the person for whose injury recovery is sought.

Connecticut Negligence Law

Connecticut uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Connecticut General Statutes Section 52-572h provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery if the negligence was not greater than the combined negligence of the parties against whom recovery is sought, including parties subject to a settlement or release. The economic or non-economic damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the person recovering the damages.

Delaware Negligence Law

Delaware uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

10 Delaware Code Section 8132 provides that the fact that the plaintiff may have been contributorily negligent will not bar their recovery if their negligence was not greater than the negligence of the defendant, or the combined negligence of all defendants against whom recovery is sought. Any damages awarded will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.

Florida Negligence Law

Florida uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar, except in medical malpractice cases.

The latest version of Florida Statutes Section 768.81, enacted in 2023, provides that contributory fault attributed to the plaintiff proportionately reduces the amount awarded as economic and non-economic damages. Contributory fault generally bars recovery if the plaintiff was more than 50 percent at fault for their own harm. However, a pure comparative negligence model applies to medical malpractice cases.

Georgia Negligence Law

Georgia uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Georgia Code Section 51-11-7 provides that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover damages if they could have avoided the consequences of the defendant’s negligence by ordinary care. However, the defendant may still be liable in other cases even if the plaintiff contributed to the injuries. Section 51-12-33 further provides that a jury must determine the percentage of fault of the plaintiff, and the judge must reduce the amount of damages otherwise awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to their percentage of fault. However, the plaintiff will not be entitled to receive any damages if they are 50 percent or more responsible for the injury.

Hawaii Negligence Law

Hawaii uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Hawaii Revised Statutes Section 663-31 provides that contributory negligence will not bar the recovery of damages for negligence if the contributory negligence was not greater than the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought, or the aggregate negligence of these parties if there is more than one of them. Any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Idaho Negligence Law

Idaho uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Idaho Code Section 6-801 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery if this was not as great as the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought. Any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Illinois Negligence Law

Illinois uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

735 Illinois Compiled Statutes Section 5/2-1116 provides that any contributory fault attributable to the plaintiff must be compared with the fault of all tortfeasors who proximately caused the injury. The plaintiff will be barred from recovering damages if the jury finds that the contributory fault of the plaintiff is more than 50 percent of the proximate cause of the injury. Otherwise, any economic or non-economic damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff.

Indiana Negligence Law

Indiana uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Indiana Code Section 34-51-2-6 provides that a plaintiff is barred from recovery in an action against one defendant or multiple defendants treated as a single party if the plaintiff’s contributory fault is greater than the fault of all parties whose fault proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s damages. In an action against two or more defendants, the plaintiff is barred from recovery if their contributory fault is greater than the fault of all parties whose fault proximately contributed to the plaintiff’s damages.

Iowa Negligence Law

Iowa uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Iowa Code Section 668.3 provides that contributory fault will not bar recovery unless the plaintiff bears a greater percentage of fault than the combined percentage of fault attributed to the defendants, third-party defendants, and parties released from liability under Section 668.7, but any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff.

Kansas Negligence Law

Kansas uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Kansas Statutes Section 60-258a provides that the contributory negligence of a plaintiff does not bar them from recovering damages for negligence if the plaintiff’s negligence was less than the causal negligence of the party against which a claim is made. The award of damages to the plaintiff must be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to them. If a party claims damages for wrongful death, the negligence of the decedent must be imputed to them.

Kentucky Negligence Law

Kentucky uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Kentucky Revised Statutes Section 411.182 provides that the judge or jury must determine the amount of damages that a plaintiff would be entitled to recover if contributory fault is disregarded, as well as the percentage of the total fault of all the parties to the claim that is allocated to the plaintiff, the defendant, any third-party defendants, and any parties released from liability. The court will then determine the award of damages to the claimant accordingly.

Louisiana Negligence Law

Louisiana uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Louisiana Civil Code Article 2323 provides that if an injury results partly because of the plaintiff’s own negligence and partly because of the fault of someone else, the amount of damages recoverable will be reduced in proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. The statute also provides that if someone suffers an injury partly because of their own negligence and partly because of the fault of an intentional tortfeasor, their claim for damages will not be reduced.

Maine Negligence Law

Maine uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

14 Maine Revised Statutes Section 156 provides that when a person suffers an injury partly due to their own fault and partly due to the fault of someone else, a resulting claim will not be defeated due to the plaintiff’s fault, but the damages recoverable will be reduced to the extent that the jury finds just and equitable, considering the plaintiff’s share in the responsibility for the harm. If the jury finds the plaintiff to be equally at fault, the plaintiff may not recover damages.

Maryland Negligence Law

Maryland uses a contributory negligence model.

The Maryland Supreme Court (then the Maryland Court of Appeals) has noted that the contributory negligence of a plaintiff will typically bar their recovery. Contributory negligence means the degree of reasonable and ordinary care that a plaintiff fails to undertake in the face of an appreciable risk, which combines with the defendant’s negligence to cause the plaintiff’s harm. However, contributory negligence is an affirmative defense, so the defendant must prove its elements by a preponderance of the evidence.

Massachusetts Negligence Law

Massachusetts uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 231 Section 85 provides that contributory negligence will not bar the recovery of damages for negligence resulting in injuries if this negligence was not greater than the total amount of negligence attributable to the party against which recovery is sought. Any damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. The negligence of the plaintiff will be compared to the total negligence of all parties against which recovery is sought.

Michigan Negligence Law

Michigan uses a pure comparative negligence model for economic damages and a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar for non-economic damages.

Michigan Compiled Laws Section 600.2959 provides that a court must reduce the damages by the percentage of comparative fault of the plaintiff. If their percentage of fault is greater than the aggregate fault of other parties, whether or not they are parties to the action, the court will reduce economic damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of comparative fault, while non-economic damages will not be awarded.

Minnesota Negligence Law

Minnesota uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Minnesota Statutes Section 604.01 provides that contributory fault does not bar recovery, as long as the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the party against which recovery is sought. Any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff. The court may direct the jury to find separate special verdicts determining the amount of damages and the percentage of fault attributable to each party, after which it will reduce the damages in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the plaintiff.

Mississippi Negligence Law

Mississippi uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Mississippi Code Section 11-7-15 provides that the fact that an injured person may have been guilty of contributory negligence will not bar their recovery. However, damages will be reduced by the jury in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the injured person.

Missouri Negligence Law

Missouri uses a pure comparative negligence model.

The Missouri Supreme Court has required courts in the state to apply the doctrine of pure comparative fault, finding that this is the best way to achieve fairness and justice.

Montana Negligence Law

Montana uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Montana Code Section 27-1-702 provides that contributory negligence does not bar the recovery of damages if it was not greater than the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought, or the combined negligence of all such parties. However, the damages will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Nebraska Negligence Law

Nebraska uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Nebraska Revised Statutes Section 25-21,185.09 provides that any contributory negligence attributable to a plaintiff will proportionately reduce the amount awarded as damages for an injury. If the plaintiff’s contributory negligence is equal to or greater than the total negligence of all parties against which recovery is sought, the plaintiff will be totally barred from recovery.

Nevada Negligence Law

Nevada uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Nevada Revised Statutes Section 41.141 provides that the comparative negligence of the plaintiff does not prevent the recovery of damages if their negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties against which recovery is sought.

New Hampshire Negligence Law

New Hampshire uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

New Hampshire Revised Statutes Section 507:7-d provides that contributory fault will not bar recovery if this fault was not greater than the fault of the defendant, or the defendants in the aggregate if recovery is allowed against more than one defendant. However, the damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to the plaintiff.

New Jersey Negligence Law

New Jersey uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

New Jersey Revised Statutes Section 2A:15-5.1 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery if this negligence was not greater than the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought, or not greater than the combined negligence of multiple such parties. Any damages will be reduced by the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

New Mexico Negligence Law

New Mexico uses a pure comparative negligence model.

The New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled that the pure form of comparative negligence is preferable to other comparative systems, finding that it more fairly distributes the burden of fault than does any modified system.

New York Negligence Law

New York uses a pure comparative negligence model.

New York Civil Practice Law and Rules Section 1411 provides that culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiff, such as contributory negligence, will not bar recovery. The amount of damages otherwise recoverable will be reduced in the proportion that the culpable conduct attributable to the plaintiff bears to the culpable conduct that caused the damages.

North Carolina Negligence Law

North Carolina uses a contributory negligence model.

The North Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff may be contributorily negligent if their conduct ignores unreasonable risks or dangers that would have been apparent to a prudent person exercising ordinary care for their own safety. A plaintiff does not need to be actually aware of the unreasonable danger of injury to which their conduct exposes them.

North Dakota Negligence Law

North Dakota uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

North Dakota Century Code Section 32-03.2-02 provides that contributory fault does not bar recovery unless the fault was as great as the combined fault of all other parties that contributed to the injury. However, any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the amount of contributing fault attributable to the plaintiff.

Ohio Negligence Law

Ohio uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Ohio Revised Code Section 2315.33 provides that the contributory fault of a plaintiff does not bar them from recovering damages that have directly and proximately resulted from the tortious conduct of others, as long as their contributory fault was not greater than the combined tortious conduct of all parties from which the plaintiff seeks recovery and all other parties. The court will reduce any compensatory damages recoverable by the plaintiff by an amount that is proportionately equal to the percentage of tortious conduct of the plaintiff.

Oklahoma Negligence Law

Oklahoma uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Oklahoma Statutes Section 23-13 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery unless the negligence of the victim is greater than any negligence of the party causing the harm, or greater than the combined negligence of multiple such parties.

Oregon Negligence Law

Oregon uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Oregon Revised Statutes Section 31.600 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery if the fault attributable to the plaintiff was not greater than the combined fault of any party from which recovery is sought, third-party defendants that are liable to the plaintiff, and any party with which the plaintiff has settled. Except for parties that have settled with the plaintiff, there will be no comparison of fault with any party that is immune from liability, that is not subject to the jurisdiction of the court, or against which a claim is barred by a statute of limitations or statute of repose. Any damages allowed will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to the plaintiff.

Pennsylvania Negligence Law

Pennsylvania uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

42 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 7102 provides that the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence will not bar a recovery by the plaintiff when their negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant or defendants against which recovery is sought. However, any damages sustained by the plaintiff will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to them.

Rhode Island Negligence Law

Rhode Island uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Rhode Island General Laws Section 9-20-4 provides that the fact that the victim may not have been using due care, or the fact that a danger or defect was open and obvious, will not bar a recovery. Damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the victim.

South Carolina Negligence Law

South Carolina uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has ruled that a plaintiff in a negligence action may recover damages if their negligence is not greater than the defendant’s negligence. The amount of the plaintiff’s damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of their negligence. If there is more than one defendant, the plaintiff’s negligence will be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants.

South Dakota Negligence Law

South Dakota uses a unique “slight negligence” model.

South Dakota Codified Laws Section 20-9-2 provides that the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence does not bar a recovery when the contributory negligence of the plaintiff was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. In this case, the damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of the plaintiff’s contributory negligence.

Tennessee Negligence Law

Tennessee uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

The Tennessee Supreme Court has ruled that if a plaintiff’s negligence is less than the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff may recover damages. These will be reduced in proportion to the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Texas Negligence Law

Texas uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 33.001 provides that a plaintiff may not recover damages if their percentage of responsibility is greater than 50 percent. The jury will determine the percentage of responsibility for each plaintiff, each defendant, each settling person, and each responsible third party.

Utah Negligence Law

Utah uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 50 percent bar.

Utah Code Section 78B-5-818 provides that the fault of a plaintiff may not alone bar their recovery. A plaintiff may recover damages from any defendant or group of defendants whose fault, combined with the fault of parties immune from suit and non-parties to whom fault is allocated, exceeds the fault of the plaintiff.

Vermont Negligence Law

Vermont uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

12 Vermont Statutes Section 1036 provides that contributory negligence will not bar recovery if the negligence was not greater than the causal total negligence of the defendant or defendants. The damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.

Virginia Negligence Law

Virginia uses a contributory negligence model.

In the case most commonly associated with this area of law, the Virginia Supreme Court noted that no person is entitled to recover from someone else for damages that have been caused by their own act or neglect.

Washington Negligence Law

Washington uses a pure comparative negligence model.

Revised Code of Washington Section 4.22.005 provides that any contributory fault attributable to the plaintiff diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to their contributory fault, but it does not bar recovery.

Washington, D.C. Negligence Law

Washington, D.C. generally uses a contributory negligence model.

The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has explained that the District does not recognize different degrees of contributory negligence. The rule is simply that contributory negligence bars a plaintiff’s recovery.

However, District of Columbia Code Section 50-2204.52 provides a distinctive rule for cases involving pedestrians or “vulnerable users” of public highways or sidewalks when they are involved in collisions with vehicles or other vulnerable users, as well as vulnerable users involved in collisions with pedestrians. (A “vulnerable user” is someone using a motorcycle, bicycle, ATV, non-motorized scooter, skateboard, or similar device.) In these cases, the negligence of the plaintiff will not bar their recovery unless it is a proximate cause of their injury and greater than the aggregated total negligence of all the defendants that proximately caused their injury.

West Virginia Negligence Law

West Virginia uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

West Virginia Code Section 55-7-13c provides that any fault attributable to the plaintiff will not bar recovery by the plaintiff unless their fault is greater than the combined fault of all other parties responsible for the total amount of damages. If the plaintiff’s fault is less than the combined fault of all other parties, their recovery will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

Wisconsin Negligence Law

Wisconsin uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Wisconsin Statutes Section 895.045 provides that contributory negligence does not bar recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence of the party against which recovery is sought. However, any damages will be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff. The negligence of the plaintiff will be measured separately against the negligence of each party found to be causally negligent.

Wyoming Negligence Law

Wyoming uses a modified comparative negligence model with a 51 percent bar.

Wyoming Statutes Section 1-1-109 provides that the contributory fault of the plaintiff will not bar recovery if it is not more than 50 percent of the total fault of all actors. Any damages will be reduced in proportion to the amount of fault attributed to the plaintiff.

Last reviewed January 2024

Personal Injury Law Center Contents

Related Areas

Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey

Columbus, Ohio Personal Injury Lawyers