State negligence laws exist to help people who suffered an injury caused by another partyโs negligent actions. The law surrounding negligence is complex, but for a person to bring a negligence claim against another, they must be able to demonstrate they came to serious harm and that said harm resulted from another partyโs negligence.[1]
In this guide, weโll explore some of the types of negligence and how the laws might differ across the United States. Weโll also look at how pre-settlement funding can help clients who are struggling with their finances while they wait for their case to conclude.
Key Points
- Negligence laws allow injury victims to bring a claim against a third party who was at fault for their accident.
- Rules vary between states, and common types of negligence include contributory negligence and comparative negligence.
- Contributory negligence laws can prevent a plaintiff from recovering damages if they were partly at fault.
- Comparative negligence laws assess the relative levels of fault for each party.
Types of Negligence Laws
There are two key types of negligence law. One is contributory negligence, and the other is comparative negligence.[2] These laws take their names based on the way they assess damages.
Under contributory negligence, a person has to prove that the injury was entirely the other partyโs fault for them to receive compensation. Under comparative negligence, the courts will assess the claim, consider who was most at fault, and base the compensation award on the portion of blame.
Many states use a modified approach, in which a plaintiff would be eligible for compensation even if they were partly to blame, as long as they can prove that the other party was more at fault. There are very few contributory negligence states. Today, most states have moved away from pure contributory negligence and adopted a modified approach.[2]
South Dakota has adopted another form of negligence, known as slight/gross comparative negligence.[2] This uses elements of both comparative and contributory negligence, assessing whether the court considers the defendantโs conduct to have incurred โslightโ or โgrossโ negligence. Because there are no clear definitions of these terms, proving negligence can be a challenge.
Understanding the way courts assess negligence in each state is essential, as the amount awarded may change based on the level of fault the court assigns to each person.
Contributory Negligence
Contributory negligence is the harshest form of negligence. In pure contributory negligence states, a plaintiff would receive no damage if the court found them to be even 1% at fault.[2] Only four states use pure contributory negligence.[3]
Most states have switched to modified contributory negligence.[2] Under this system, the court assesses the percentage of fault and uses that to calculate how much compensation to award. If the injured personโs fault exceeds a specific threshold, they will receive no damages. The threshold at which the plaintiff can no longer receive damages is often set to either 49% or 50%. Some states have specific provisions for cases with multiple defendants who may share some fault but who are not a part of the lawsuit.[2]
Comparative Negligence
In comparative negligence states, an injured party can recover compensation even if they share fault for their damages. This applies even if the injured party was 99% at fault.[4]
Having an awareness of negligence statutes by state and understanding how the difference between slight and gross negligence affects outcomes is essential when filing a personal injury claim. A strong case in some states could have a much lower chance of success in a different part of the country.
State by State Negligence Laws
A table of negligence statutes by state is shown below.
| State | Negligence Type | Relevant Statute | Fault Threshold |
| Alabama | Contributory | Alabama Rules of Statutory Authority | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| Alaska | Pure comparative | Alaska Statute 09.17.060 โ 09.17.080 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Arizona | Pure comparative | Arizona Revised Statutes ยง 12-2505 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Arkansas | Modified comparative | Arkansas Code Annotated ยง 16-64-122 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| California | Pure comparative | Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, 532 P.2d 1226 (1975) | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Colorado | Modified comparative | Colorado Revised Statutes (C.R.S.) ยง 13-21-111 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Connecticut | Modified comparative | Connecticut General Statutes ยง 52-572h(b) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Delaware | Modified comparative | 10 Del. C. ยง 8132 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| District of Columbia | Contributory | Wingfield v. Peopleโs Drug Store, 379 A.2d 685 (1977) | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| Florida | Modified comparative | Florida Statute ยง 768.81(2) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Georgia | Modified comparative | Georgia Codes ยง 51-12-33 and ยง 51-11-7 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Hawaii | Modified comparative | Hawaii Revised Statutes ยง 663-31 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Idaho | Modified comparative | Idaho Code ยง 6-801 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Illinois | Modified comparative | Illinois Compiled Statutes (735 ILCS 5/2-1116) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Indiana | Modified comparative | Indiana Code ยง 34-51-2-5 and ยง 34-51-2-6 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Iowa | Modified comparative | Iowa Code ยง 668.3(1)(b) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Kansas | Modified comparative | Kansas Statutes Annotated ยง 60-258a(a) | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Kentucky | Pure comparative | Kentucky Revised Statutes ยง 411.182 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Louisiana | Pure comparative | Louisiana Civil Code Article 2323 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Maine | Modified comparative | Maine Revised Statutes ยง 156 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Maryland | Contributory | Garrett County Maryland v. Bell Atlantic, 695 A.2d 171 (1977) | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| Massachusetts | Modified comparative | General Laws of Massachusetts Ch. 231 ยง 85 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Michigan | Modified comparative | Michigan Compiled Laws 600.2957 et. seq.; MCL 600.6304; and MCL 600.2959 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Minnesota | Modified comparative | Minnesota Statutes ยง 604.01(1) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Mississippi | Pure comparative | Mississippi Code Annotated ยง 11-7-15 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Missouri | Pure comparative | Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (1983); Missouri Revised Statutes ยง 537.765 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Montana | Modified comparative | Montana Code Annotated ยง 27-1-702 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Nebraska | Modified comparative | Nebraska Revised Statutes ยง 25-21,185.09; Neb. R.S. ยง 25-21,185.12 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Nevada | Modified comparative | Nevada Revised Statutes ยง 41.141 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Hampshire | Modified comparative | New Hampshire Revised Statutes ยง 507:7-d | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Jersey | Modified comparative | New Jersey Statutes ยง 2A:15-5.1 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Mexico | Pure comparative | New Mexico Statutes Annotated ยง 41-4-1 et seq; Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| New York | Pure comparative | New York Civil Practice Law & Rules ยง 1411 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| North Carolina | Contributory | Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 268 S.E.2d 504 (1980) | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| North Dakota | Modified comparative | North Dakota Century Code ยง 32-03.2-02 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Ohio | Modified comparative | Ohio Revised Code ยง 2315.33 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Oklahoma | Modified comparative | Oklahoma Statutes ยง 23-13 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Oregon | Modified comparative | Oregon Revised Statutes ยง 31.600 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Pennsylvania | Modified comparative | Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes ยง 7102 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Rhode Island | Pure comparative | Rhode Island General Laws ยง 9-20-4 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| South Carolina | Modified comparative | Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 532 S.E.2d 612 (2000) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| South Dakota | Slight/gross | South Dakota Codified Laws ยง 20-9-2 | Plaintiffโs fault must be slight and defendantโs gross |
| Tennessee | Modified comparative | McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (1992) | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Texas | Modified comparative | Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code ยง 33.001-33.017 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Utah | Modified comparative | Utah Code Annotated ยง 78B-5-818(2) | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Vermont | Modified comparative | Vermont Statutes Annotated Tit. 12, ยง 1036 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Virginia | Contributory | Baskett v. Banks, 45 S.E.2d 173 (1947) | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| Washington | Pure comparative | Revised Code of Washington ยง 4.22.005-015 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| West Virginia | Modified comparative | West Virginia Code ยง 55-7-13a and ยง 55-7-13c(c) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Wisconsin | Modified comparative | Wisconsin Statutes ยง 895.045(1) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Wyoming | Modified comparative | Wyoming Statutes ยง 1-1-109 | Less than 51% at-fault |
How USClaims Can Help Your Clients
USClaims offers pre-settlement funding to help your clients cover their critical expenses while you fight for a fair settlement. Plaintiffs with a qualifying claim can apply for funding that is repayable only once the case concludes.
Donโt let financial pressures get in the way of your ability to fight for a fair settlement for your clients. See our pre-settlement funding FAQs for details of the process or contact us to learn more about how pre-settlement funding works.
The availability of pre-settlement funding varies by state. Contact USClaims for more information.
Sources
- โNegligence.โ Legal Information Institute (LII), www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence. n.d.
- โComparative and Contributory Negligence.โ Lawinfo.com, www.lawinfo.com/resources/personal-injury/comparative-and-contributory-negligence-laws-by-state.html. 16 Feb 2024.
- Contributory Negligence.โ Legal Information Institute (LII), www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_negligence.
- โComparative Negligence: Definition, Types, and Examples.โ Investopedia, www.investopedia.com/terms/c/comparative-negligence.asp. 25 June 2023.
