Contributory and Comparative Negligence by State

Pure contributory negligence; affirmative defense under A.R.C.P. Rule 8(c).

Pure comparative negligence. AS 09.17.060.

Pure comparative negligence. A.R.S. § 12-2505. However, a trier of fact may bar recovery if the claimant willfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the death or injury. A.R.S. § 12-2505.

Modified comparative negligence. If the plaintiff’s fault is equal to or greater than the fault of the party or parties from whom they seek damages, they are not entitled to recover those damages. A.C.A. § 16-64-122.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff will be barred from recovery if their fault is equal to or greater than the fault of defendants and designated non-parties at fault. C.R.S. § 13-21-111.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff is barred from recovery if their negligence is greater than that of the defendant(s). C.G.S. § 52-572h(b). Note the term contributory negligence is retained in statutes and some court opinions.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff is barred from recovery if their negligence is greater than that of the defendant(s). 10 Del. C. § 8132.

Pure contributory negligence. But the last clear chance doctrine is an exception where applicable.

Pure comparative negligence. Fla. Stat. § 768.81.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff may not recover if they are 50% or more at fault. Total liability reduced by plaintiff’s percentage of fault so long as plaintiff 50% or less at fault. Ga. Code § 51-12-33. But see Ga. Code § 51-11-7 (Avoidance defense).

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff can recover if plaintiff’s fault is not greater than combined defendants. Recovery is reduced by the proportion of plaintiff’s fault. Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff may not recover if they are 50% or more at fault. Idaho Code § 6-801. The “individual rule” applies, meaning each defendant’s negligence is separately compared to that of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff cannot recover against that defendant if they are more negligent than the individual defendant.

Modified comparative negligence. The plaintiff is barred from recovering damages if they are more than 50% at fault. 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff is barred from recovery if they are 51% or more at fault. I.C. § 34-51-2-5; I.C. § 34-51-2-6.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff may not recover if they are 50% or more at fault than the party or parties against whom a claim is made. K.S.A. § 60-258a.

Pure comparative negligence. Ky. Rev. Stat. § 411.182.

Pure comparative negligence. Defendant’s liability will be offset proportionally by plaintiff’s liability. La. Civ. Code Art. 2323.

Modified comparative negligence. If the claimant is equally or more at fault, they may not recover. 14 M.R.S. § 156. If the plaintiff is entitled to recovery, the jury must first compute the total damages. Then, the jury is required to reduce the total damages as they think is “just and equitable” in light of the claimant’s share in responsibility. Note that this does not mean the damage allocation must mirror the calculation of fault.

Modified comparative negligence. Recovery is not barred unless plaintiff’s fault is greater than total fault attributable to defendant(s). Gen. Laws Mass., G.L. c. 231, § 85.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s recovery is reduced to the extent their negligence contributed to the injury;  MCL 600.2957 et. seq.; MCL 600.6304. If the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault, they are barred from recovering non-economic damages. MCL 600.2959.

Modified comparative negligence. A plaintiff can recover from a defendant whose fault is equal to or greater than their own fault. Minn. Stat. § 604.01. Defendants’ fault is not to be aggregated in applying the comparative fault statute. That is, a plaintiff who is 50% at fault cannot recover from two defendants who are each less than 50% at fault. An exception exists where defendants were acting in a joint venture.

Pure comparative fault. Plaintiff’s right to damages may be reduced by his own liability, but he will not be barred from recovering. Miss. Code § 11-7-15.

Modified comparative negligence—plaintiff’s negligence will not bar recovery, if less than total fault of defendants and nonparties; but will proportionally reduce recovery. Mont. Stat. § 27-1-702.

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant cannot recover if their percentage of fault is greater than or equal to the total negligence of all defendants. The award of damages is diminished by the percentage of negligence attributed to them. Neb. R.S. § 25-21,185.09.

Assumption of risk is an affirmative defense. Neb. R.S. § 25-21,185.12.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiffs may not recover if their negligence is greater than the negligence of the defendant or the combined negligence of multiple defendants. NRS § 41.141.

Modified comparative negligence. A plaintiff 51% or more at fault cannot recover. A plaintiff 50% or less at fault can recover in proportion to their amount of fault. N.H. Rev. Stat. § 507:7-d.

Pure comparative negligence. The claimant is entitled to recover from each defendant the percentage of fault assessed against them. N.M. Stat. § 41-3A-1(B).

Pure comparative negligence. N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411.

Pure contributory negligence, even in products liability cases. N.C.G.S. § 99B-4.

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant’s contributory fault does not bar recovery unless the fault was as great as the combined fault of all other persons who contribute to the injury. Damages must be diminished in proportion to the amount of contributing fault. N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02.

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant’s negligence is not a bar to recovery so long as the claimant’s negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of those causing the damage. Okla. Stat. Tit. 23, § 13.

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant’s negligence is not a bar to recovery so long as claimant’s fault is not greater than the combined fault of (i) any party against whom recovery is sought, (ii) the fault of third-party defendants who are liable in tort to the claimant, and (iii) the fault of any person with whom the claimant has settled. Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 31.600(1). The damages shall be diminished in proportion to the percentage of fault attributable to the claimant. Or. Rev. Stat. § 31.600(1).

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s negligence is not a bar to recovery so long as plaintiff’s negligence is not greater than the negligence of the defendant(s). Any damages shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of the plaintiff’s negligence. 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102.

Pure comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s negligence is not a bar to recovery, but damages are diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.

Modified comparative negligence. Plaintiff’s contributory negligence does not bar a recovery when it was slight in comparison with the negligence of the defendant. S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2. “Slight” is defined as small of its kind or in amount; scanty; meager. In such cases, damages shall be reduced in proportion to the amount of plaintiff’s contributory negligence. S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2.

Modified comparative negligence. So long as a plaintiff’s negligence remains less than the defendant’s negligence, the plaintiff may recover. Plaintiff’s damages are to be reduced in proportion to the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the plaintiff.

Modified comparative negligence. The damaged party cannot recover if it is 51% or more at fault. Calls it “proportionate responsibility.” Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.001.

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant may recover from any defendant or group of defendants whose fault, combined with the fault of persons immune from suit and nonparties to whom fault is allocated, exceeds the fault of the claimant prior to any reallocation of fault made under Utah Code § 78B-5-819(2). Utah Code § 78B-5-818(2).

Pure contributory negligence; Va. Code § 8.01-58 (Actions by employees against common carriers).

Pure comparative negligence. Wash. Rev. Code § 4.22.005.

Modified comparative negligence. W. Va. Code § 55-7-13a. Claimant’s fault shall not bar recovery unless the claimant’s fault is greater than the combined fault of all other persons responsible for the total amount of damages. Otherwise, claimant’s recovery shall be reduced in proportion to the degree of fault. W. Va. Code § 55-7-13c(c).

Modified comparative negligence. Claimant’s contributory negligence will bar recovery if the claimant’s negligence is greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought. When not barred, the claimant’s recovery is diminished proportionately to the claimant’s proportion of fault. Wis. Stat. § 895.045(1). Special rules may apply in products liability cases (Wis. Stat. § 895.045(3)) and other case types (Wis. Stat. § 895.01 et seq.).