Pure Contributory
5 jurisdictionsAny fault on the plaintiff's part — even 1% — completely bars recovery. The harshest rule in the U.S.
Alabama, District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia
Comparative Negligence by State
How each U.S. state apportions fault between plaintiff and defendant in personal-injury cases. This is one of the three biggest levers (along with damage caps and policy limits) that determines what your case is actually worth.
Reviewed by Leonard Goldberg, Editor · Last updated · Quick definition
The Four Rule Types (and One Hybrid)
Pure Comparative
11 jurisdictionsPlaintiff recovers their percentage of damages regardless of fault level. Even a plaintiff 99% at fault recovers 1% of damages.
Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Washington
Modified 50%
12 jurisdictionsPlaintiff is barred from recovery if they are 50% or more at fault. Recovery reduced by plaintiff's % below that threshold.
Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming
Modified 51%
22 jurisdictionsPlaintiff is barred from recovery if they are 51% or more at fault (i.e., must be less at fault than the defendant). The most common U.S. rule.
Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, West Virginia, Wisconsin
Slight/Gross (hybrid)
1 jurisdictionPlaintiff recovers only if their negligence was 'slight' in comparison to defendant's 'gross' negligence — a unique South Dakota rule.
South Dakota
All 51 Jurisdictions: Rule + Citation
| State | Rule | Citation | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Pure Contributory | Common law (no statutory abrogation) | Any fault = $0 recovery |
| Alaska | Pure Comparative | AS § 09.17.060 | |
| Arizona | Pure Comparative | A.R.S. § 12-2505 | |
| Arkansas | Modified 50% | Ark. Code § 16-64-122 | |
| California | Pure Comparative | Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) | |
| Colorado | Modified 50% | C.R.S. § 13-21-111 | |
| Connecticut | Modified 51% | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-572h | |
| Delaware | Modified 51% | 10 Del. C. § 8132 | |
| District of Columbia | Pure Contributory | Common law | Any fault = $0 recovery |
| Florida | Modified 51% | Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (HB 837, 2023) | Changed from pure to modified-51 in 2023 |
| Georgia | Modified 50% | O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 | |
| Hawaii | Modified 51% | HRS § 663-31 | |
| Idaho | Modified 50% | Idaho Code § 6-801 | |
| Illinois | Modified 51% | 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 | |
| Indiana | Modified 51% | Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6 | |
| Iowa | Modified 51% | Iowa Code § 668.3(1)(b) | |
| Kansas | Modified 50% | K.S.A. § 60-258a | |
| Kentucky | Pure Comparative | Hilen v. Hays (Ky. 1984) | |
| Louisiana | Pure Comparative | La. Civ. Code Art. 2323 | |
| Maine | Modified 50% | 14 M.R.S. § 156 | |
| Maryland | Pure Contributory | Common law (Coleman v. Soccer Ass'n) | Any fault = $0 recovery |
| Massachusetts | Modified 51% | M.G.L. ch. 231 § 85 | |
| Michigan | Modified 51% | MCL § 600.6304(8) | |
| Minnesota | Modified 51% | Minn. Stat. § 604.01 | |
| Mississippi | Pure Comparative | Miss. Code § 11-7-15 | |
| Missouri | Pure Comparative | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765 | |
| Montana | Modified 51% | Mont. Code § 27-1-702 | |
| Nebraska | Modified 50% | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09 | |
| Nevada | Modified 51% | NRS § 41.141 | |
| New Hampshire | Modified 51% | RSA § 507:7-d | |
| New Jersey | Modified 51% | N.J.S.A. § 2A:15-5.1 | |
| New Mexico | Pure Comparative | Scott v. Rizzo (N.M. 1981) | |
| New York | Pure Comparative | CPLR § 1411 | |
| North Carolina | Pure Contributory | Common law (Bowen v. State) | Any fault = $0 recovery |
| North Dakota | Modified 50% | N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 | |
| Ohio | Modified 51% | R.C. § 2315.33 | |
| Oklahoma | Modified 50% | 23 Okla. Stat. § 13 | |
| Oregon | Modified 51% | ORS § 31.600 | |
| Pennsylvania | Modified 51% | 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 | |
| Rhode Island | Pure Comparative | R.I.G.L. § 9-20-4 | |
| South Carolina | Modified 51% | Nelson v. Concrete Supply Co. (1991) | |
| South Dakota | Slight/Gross (hybrid) | SDCL § 20-9-2 | Plaintiff recovers only if their negligence was 'slight' vs defendant's 'gross' |
| Tennessee | Modified 50% | McIntyre v. Balentine (Tenn. 1992) | |
| Texas | Modified 51% | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001 | |
| Utah | Modified 50% | Utah Code § 78B-5-818 | |
| Vermont | Modified 51% | 12 V.S.A. § 1036 | |
| Virginia | Pure Contributory | Common law (Baskett v. Banks) | Any fault = $0 recovery |
| Washington | Pure Comparative | RCW § 4.22.005 | |
| West Virginia | Modified 51% | W.Va. Code § 55-7-13c | |
| Wisconsin | Modified 51% | Wis. Stat. § 895.045 | |
| Wyoming | Modified 50% | Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109 |
How the Rules Actually Work
Same Case, Different States, Wildly Different Results
Same crash: plaintiff 20% at fault, $200,000 in damages.
- Virginia (pure contributory): Recovery = $0 (any fault bars recovery)
- Maryland (pure contributory): Recovery = $0
- Texas (modified-51): Recovery = $160,000 (20% reduction; under 51% threshold)
- California (pure comparative): Recovery = $160,000
- Same plaintiff at 60% fault:
- Pure-comparative states (CA, NY, FL/pre-2023, etc.): Recovery = $80,000
- Modified-51 (TX, IL, etc.): Recovery = $0 (over threshold)
Florida’s 2023 Shift
Florida changed from pure comparative to modified-51 with HB 837 in 2023 — one of the largest tort-reform changes of the decade. Cases now barred at 51% fault that previously allowed recovery. Pre-2023 accidents may still be governed by the old rule.
50% vs 51% Threshold — Why It Matters
In modified-50% states (CO, GA, AR, KS, ID, ME, NE, NV, OK, SC, SD, TN, UT, WY, ND, IL), a 50/50 split bars the plaintiff entirely. In modified-51% states (the majority), a 50/50 split still allows plaintiff to recover 50%. This single percentage point is often litigated heavily.
South Dakota’s Slight/Gross Rule
South Dakota is the only state still using a slight-gross rule (SDCL § 20-9-2): plaintiff recovers only if their negligence was “slight” and defendant’s was “gross.” In practice this acts as a defense-favorable bar; most cases settle to avoid the rule.
Browse All Guides
23 comprehensive guides covering every part of a personal-injury claim — from accident to settlement check.
How Much Is My Case Worth?
Adjuster's formula + worked examples
The Claim Process
9 stages from accident to check
PI Lawyer Cost
Contingency fees, sliding scales
After a Car Accident
10-step guide for the first 48 hours
Negotiate with Adjusters
9 principles + adjuster-tactic responses
Demand Letter Template
7-section template + sample text
Personal Injury FAQ
30+ plain-English answers
Types of PI Cases
Every category with burden + value
PI Statistics (Citable)
28.5M+ records, key figures
Average Settlement by Injury
Median + range for 10 injury types
Statute of Limitations
All 51 jurisdictions × 4 claim types
Workers' Comp by State
51 states ranked by max weekly TTD
No-Fault Insurance States
12 + DC PIP minimums & thresholds
Insurance Bad Faith
Triggers + state-by-state remedies
How to Find a PI Lawyer
6 steps + 12 questions + 7 red flags
Workers' Comp Claim Process
8-stage timeline + third-party suits
How Much Is My WC Case Worth?
Formula, scheduled losses, third-party
Legal Research Sources
30+ authoritative gov + bar sources
PI vs Workers' Comp
Side-by-side comparison + 6 scenarios
Punitive Damages by State
51-state caps + Gore due-process
Can I Sue for Pain & Suffering?
Yes/no guide + 10 FAQs
Legal Glossary
50+ legal & insurance terms