Comparative Negligence by State (Pure, Modified 50%, 51%, Contributory)

Comparative Negligence by State

If you were partly at fault, can you still recover? Search the comparative negligence rule for every US state. Pure, modified 50%, modified 51%, contributory, and slight-gross jurisdictions broken out side by side.

At a glance

Jurisdictions covered: 51 (50 states + DC)
Most common rule: Modified 51% bar (25 jurisdictions)
Pure comparative: 10 jurisdictions
Pure contributory (any fault bars): 5 jurisdictions (AL, MD, NC, VA, DC)
Slight-gross (unique): South Dakota only
Last verified: 2026-05-22

Browse by rule type:

Showing 51 of 51 states

			Statute	Details
Alabama	Contributory (pure bar)	Special rule	Williams v. Delta Int'l Mach. Corp., 619 So. 2d 1330 (Ala. 1993)	Details →
Alaska	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060	Details →
Arizona	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2505	Details →
Arkansas	Modified 50% bar	50%	Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122	Details →
California	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal. 3d 804 (1975)	Details →
Colorado	Modified 50% bar	50%	Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111	Details →
Connecticut	Modified 51% bar	50%	Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h	Details →
Delaware	Modified 51% bar	50%	10 Del. Code § 8132	Details →
District of Columbia	Contributory (pure bar)	Special rule	Wingfield v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1977)	Details →
Florida	Modified 51% bar	50%	Fla. Stat. § 768.81	Details →
Georgia	Modified 50% bar	50%	Ga. Code Ann. § 51-12-33	Details →
Hawaii	Modified 51% bar	50%	Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31	Details →
Idaho	Modified 50% bar	50%	Idaho Code § 6-801	Details →
Illinois	Modified 51% bar	50%	735 ILCS 5/2-1116	Details →
Indiana	Modified 51% bar	50%	Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6	Details →
Iowa	Modified 51% bar	50%	Iowa Code § 668.3	Details →
Kansas	Modified 50% bar	50%	Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a	Details →
Kentucky	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182	Details →
Louisiana	Modified 51% bar	50%	La. Civ. Code art. 2323 (as amended by 2025 La. Act 15, HB 431)	Details →
Maine	Modified 50% bar	50%	14 M.R.S. § 156	Details →
Maryland	Contributory (pure bar)	Special rule	Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n of Columbia, 432 Md. 679, 69 A.3d 1149 (2013)	Details →
Massachusetts	Modified 51% bar	50%	Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85	Details →
Michigan	Modified 51% bar	50%	Mich. Comp. Laws § 600.2959	Details →
Minnesota	Modified 51% bar	50%	Minn. Stat. § 604.01	Details →
Mississippi	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-15	Details →
Missouri	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1983)	Details →
Montana	Modified 51% bar	50%	Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702	Details →
Nebraska	Modified 50% bar	50%	Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09	Details →
Nevada	Modified 51% bar	50%	Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41.141	Details →
New Hampshire	Modified 51% bar	50%	N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:7-d	Details →
New Jersey	Modified 51% bar	50%	N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.1	Details →
New Mexico	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Scott v. Rizzo, 96 N.M. 682, 634 P.2d 1234 (1981)	Details →
New York	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411	Details →
North Carolina	Contributory (pure bar)	Special rule	Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 300 N.C. 669, 268 S.E.2d 504 (1980)	Details →
North Dakota	Modified 50% bar	50%	N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02	Details →
Ohio	Modified 51% bar	50%	Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33	Details →
Oklahoma	Modified 51% bar	50%	Okla. Stat. tit. 23, § 13	Details →
Oregon	Modified 51% bar	50%	Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.600	Details →
Pennsylvania	Modified 51% bar	50%	42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102	Details →
Rhode Island	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4	Details →
South Carolina	Modified 51% bar	50%	Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co., 303 S.C. 243, 399 S.E.2d 783 (1991)	Details →
South Dakota	Slight-gross	Special rule	S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2	Details →
Tennessee	Modified 50% bar	50%	McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992)	Details →
Texas	Modified 51% bar	50%	Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001	Details →
Utah	Modified 50% bar	50%	Utah Code § 78B-5-818	Details →
Vermont	Modified 51% bar	50%	12 V.S.A. § 1036	Details →
Virginia	Contributory (pure bar)	Special rule	Baskett v. Banks, 186 Va. 1022, 45 S.E.2d 173 (1947)	Details →
Washington	Pure comparative	No cap (99%)	Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.005	Details →
West Virginia	Modified 51% bar	50%	W. Va. Code § 55-7-13a	Details →
Wisconsin	Modified 51% bar	50%	Wis. Stat. § 895.045	Details →
Wyoming	Modified 51% bar	50%	Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109	Details →

Cite this data

SetCalc. "Comparative Negligence Rules by State." Updated 2026-05-22. https://setcalc.com/comparative-negligence-by-state. Accessed 2026-05-23.

This page is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Some states apply different rules to specific case categories (medical negligence in Florida, for example). Confirm the controlling rule with a licensed attorney before relying on it.

Developers: the full dataset is available as a Schema.org Dataset JSON-LD feed at https://setcalc.com/api/legal-rules/comparative-negligence.json under CC BY 4.0. CORS enabled; edge-cached one hour with 24-hour stale-while-revalidate.

Recent rule changes

Dated timeline of statutory and judicial changes that have moved at least one US jurisdiction between comparative-negligence categories.

2026-01-01

Louisiana switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

Louisiana left the pure-comparative cluster and joined the modified-51 group effective January 1, 2026 under Act 15 of 2025 (HB 431). The modified rule applies to accidents on or after the effective date; pre-cutover accidents remain on pure comparative.

2023-03-24

Florida switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

Florida left the pure-comparative cluster effective March 24, 2023 under House Bill 837, amending Fla. Stat. § 768.81. Medical-negligence cases were excluded and remain under pure comparative principles.

2015-05-22

West Virginia adopted a 51% bar

West Virginia codified modified-51 comparative fault under W. Va. Code § 55-7-13a, signed into law by 2015 HB 2002. The state previously applied a different rule under common law.

Comparative Negligence FAQ

What is comparative negligence?

Comparative negligence is the legal rule that decides how an injured person's own share of fault affects what they can recover. If you were partly responsible for the accident, the rule in your state determines whether your damages are simply reduced or whether you are barred from recovering anything at all.

What is the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence?

Under pure comparative negligence, a claimant can recover damages no matter how high their share of fault is, with the award reduced by their percentage. Under modified comparative negligence, the claimant is barred entirely once their fault crosses a cutoff. The most common cutoff is 51% (the "51% bar"), meaning recovery is barred when fault is greater than 50%. A smaller group of states use a 50% bar, where recovery is barred at 50% or more.

Which states still use contributory negligence?

Only a handful of US jurisdictions still apply the strict contributory negligence rule, where any fault on the claimant's part bars recovery entirely: Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This rule is heavily criticized but remains binding in those jurisdictions until changed by the legislature or high court.

How does comparative negligence affect a settlement?

Insurance adjusters and defense attorneys argue percentage of fault to reduce what they pay. If liability is contested, the comparative-negligence rule in the venue where the case would be tried sets the worst-case outcome and influences settlement negotiations. In modified-bar states, even a small dispute about fault can have an outsized effect on settlement value because crossing the threshold means recovering nothing.

Has any state changed its rule recently?

Yes. Florida switched from pure comparative negligence to a 51% bar in 2023 under House Bill 837. The new rule applies to causes of action accruing on or after March 24, 2023. Medical-negligence cases are excluded from the new rule and remain on pure comparative principles.

Where does this data come from?

Every row in the table links to the controlling state statute or court decision. We do not summarize secondary commentary. Each entry shows the date we last verified the citation against the official state source. This page is informational and does not constitute legal advice.

Currently covering 51 states. We are adding the remaining states as each row is verified against the controlling primary source.

All 50 States, Cited to Primary Source

Comparative Negligence by State

At a glance

Recent rule changes

Louisiana switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

Florida switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

West Virginia adopted a 51% bar

Wondering how fault percentages affect your case value?

Comparative Negligence FAQ

What is comparative negligence?

What is the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence?

Which states still use contributory negligence?

How does comparative negligence affect a settlement?

Has any state changed its rule recently?

Where does this data come from?

Artificial Intelligence + Attorney Insight^TM

All 50 States, Cited to Primary Source

Comparative Negligence by State

At a glance

Recent rule changes

Louisiana switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

Florida switched from pure comparative to a 51% bar

West Virginia adopted a 51% bar

Wondering how fault percentages affect your case value?

Comparative Negligence FAQ

What is comparative negligence?

What is the difference between pure and modified comparative negligence?

Which states still use contributory negligence?

How does comparative negligence affect a settlement?

Has any state changed its rule recently?

Where does this data come from?

Artificial Intelligence + Attorney InsightTM

Artificial Intelligence + Attorney Insight^TM