Guide · updated 2026-08-02
The four fault rules, and the wording that decides cases
Your own share of fault reduces a recovery in most states, bars it in some, and bars only part of it in one. The gap between a fifty percent rule and a fifty-one percent rule decides real cases, and the statutes say so plainly.
Pure comparative: reduced, never barred
Under a pure comparative rule, damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's share of fault and nothing more. A claimant found ninety percent responsible recovers ten percent of their damages. California and New York sit here, as do Florida's medical negligence claims. It is the simplest rule to compute and the one that produces recoveries people find least intuitive.
Modified comparative: the bar, and where it sits
Most states reduce recovery the same way but add a cut-off, and the exact wording is what matters. Texas bars recovery when the claimant's responsibility is greater than fifty percent. Illinois bars it when the claimant's contributory fault is more than fifty percent of the total. Pennsylvania's statute is framed the same way. In each of those, a claimant found exactly half at fault still recovers — half. Other states bar recovery at fifty percent or more, so exactly half at fault means nothing at all. Same arithmetic everywhere else in the calculation; opposite outcome at the pivot. Florida moved from pure comparative to a greater-than-fifty-percent bar in March 2023 and applied the change to causes of action filed after that date — with medical negligence claims expressly carved back out and left pure.
Contributory negligence: any fault at all
Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia and the District of Columbia retain contributory negligence, under which a claimant whose own negligence contributed to the harm recovers nothing, however small the share. These are common-law rules rather than code sections in most of those jurisdictions, which is why the source of record is a court opinion or a set of model jury instructions rather than a statute. The District has a statutory exception for cyclists and other non-motorised users, under which contributory negligence is not a bar unless the claimant's negligence was a substantial factor and greater than the defendant's.
Michigan bars part of the claim, not the claim
Michigan is routinely described as a modified comparative state with a fifty-one percent bar. That is half the rule. What Michigan bars above the threshold is non-economic damages — the pain and suffering component. Economic damages, meaning medical expenses and lost earnings, remain recoverable and are simply reduced by the claimant's share of fault. Applying a general bar there zeroes out a recovery the statute preserves. It is the clearest illustration of why a fault rule has to be read rather than categorised.
Official sources for this guide
Now do the math →
🚗 Car Accident Settlement Calculator
Annual update alerts — new IRS and state figures the week they drop
One email when the numbers change. Double opt-in, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.