State negligence laws exist to help people who suffered an injury caused by another party’s 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 party’s negligence.[1]
In this guide, we’ll explore some of the types of negligence and how the laws might differ across the United States. We’ll 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 party’s 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 defendant’s conduct to have incurred “slight” or “gross” 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 person’s 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 – 09.17.080 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Arizona | Pure comparative | Arizona Revised Statutes § 12-2505 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Arkansas | Modified comparative | Arkansas Code Annotated § 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.) § 13-21-111 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Connecticut | Modified comparative | Connecticut General Statutes § 52-572h(b) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Delaware | Modified comparative | 10 Del. C. § 8132 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| District of Columbia | Contributory | Wingfield v. People’s Drug Store, 379 A.2d 685 (1977) | No recovery if even 1% at fault |
| Florida | Modified comparative | Florida Statute § 768.81(2) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Georgia | Modified comparative | Georgia Codes § 51-12-33 and § 51-11-7 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Hawaii | Modified comparative | Hawaii Revised Statutes § 663-31 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Idaho | Modified comparative | Idaho Code § 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 § 34-51-2-5 and § 34-51-2-6 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Iowa | Modified comparative | Iowa Code § 668.3(1)(b) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Kansas | Modified comparative | Kansas Statutes Annotated § 60-258a(a) | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Kentucky | Pure comparative | Kentucky Revised Statutes § 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 § 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 § 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 § 604.01(1) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Mississippi | Pure comparative | Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-7-15 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Missouri | Pure comparative | Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (1983); Missouri Revised Statutes § 537.765 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| Montana | Modified comparative | Montana Code Annotated § 27-1-702 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Nebraska | Modified comparative | Nebraska Revised Statutes § 25-21,185.09; Neb. R.S. § 25-21,185.12 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Nevada | Modified comparative | Nevada Revised Statutes § 41.141 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Hampshire | Modified comparative | New Hampshire Revised Statutes § 507:7-d | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Jersey | Modified comparative | New Jersey Statutes § 2A:15-5.1 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| New Mexico | Pure comparative | New Mexico Statutes Annotated § 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 § 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 § 32-03.2-02 | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Ohio | Modified comparative | Ohio Revised Code § 2315.33 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Oklahoma | Modified comparative | Oklahoma Statutes § 23-13 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Oregon | Modified comparative | Oregon Revised Statutes § 31.600 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Pennsylvania | Modified comparative | Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes § 7102 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Rhode Island | Pure comparative | Rhode Island General Laws § 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 § 20-9-2 | Plaintiff’s fault must be slight and defendant’s 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 § 33.001-33.017 | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Utah | Modified comparative | Utah Code Annotated § 78B-5-818(2) | Less than 50% at-fault |
| Vermont | Modified comparative | Vermont Statutes Annotated Tit. 12, § 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 § 4.22.005-015 | Up to 99% at-fault |
| West Virginia | Modified comparative | West Virginia Code § 55-7-13a and § 55-7-13c(c) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Wisconsin | Modified comparative | Wisconsin Statutes § 895.045(1) | Less than 51% at-fault |
| Wyoming | Modified comparative | Wyoming Statutes § 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.
Don’t 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
- “Negligence.” Legal Information Institute (LII), www.law.cornell.edu/wex/negligence. n.d.
- “Comparative and Contributory Negligence.” Lawinfo.com, www.lawinfo.com/resources/personal-injury/comparative-and-contributory-negligence-laws-by-state.html. 16 Feb 2024.
- Contributory Negligence.” Legal Information Institute (LII), www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_negligence.
- “Comparative Negligence: Definition, Types, and Examples.” Investopedia, www.investopedia.com/terms/c/comparative-negligence.asp. 25 June 2023.