Who qualifies

UPDATED FEB 2026

Part of the Slip and Fall investigation

The short answer

Every state's negligence law determines whether and how much you can recover if you were partially at fault for your fall. Pure contributory negligence states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, D.C.) bar recovery if you are even 1% at fault.

Most states use modified comparative negligence with 50% or 51% bars. California and New York allow recovery regardless of fault level.

People's Justice Research TeamUpdated February 21, 2026Fact-checked

Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold

Free Case Review

Check your eligibility — free

Answer 2-3 quick questions to review your potential case.

Free · Confidential · About 2 minutes · A case specialist responds within 1 business day

Your answers are never sold or shared without your consent.

Three Negligence Systems Across 50 States

The United States has three different approaches to shared fault in personal injury cases. Pure contributory negligence (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington D.C.): if the plaintiff is even 1% at fault for the accident, they recover nothing. This is the harshest rule and is a significant barrier for plaintiffs in these states. Property owners aggressively assert contributory negligence defenses here. Pure comparative negligence (California, New York, Florida pre-2023, Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Washington): the plaintiff recovers damages reduced by their percentage of fault — even if they are 99% at fault. Modified comparative negligence — 50% bar (Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia): the plaintiff recovers only if their fault is less than 50%. Modified comparative negligence — 51% bar (Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, Wyoming): the plaintiff recovers only if their fault is 50% or less. Florida reformed its negligence law in 2023 from pure comparative to modified 51%, meaning plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault no longer recover in Florida.

How Insurers Use Comparative Fault as a Defense

Property owners and their insurers routinely assert comparative fault defenses to reduce or eliminate payout obligations. Common arguments include: the plaintiff was distracted by a phone at the time of the fall; the plaintiff was wearing inappropriate footwear for the conditions; the plaintiff ignored visible warning signs; the wet floor sign was present but the plaintiff disregarded it; the hazard was open and obvious and a reasonably careful person would have avoided it. An experienced plaintiff's attorney anticipates these arguments and builds the case from the outset to minimize comparative fault exposure — demonstrating that the hazard was not obvious, that warning signs were absent or inadequate, and that the plaintiff was exercising reasonable care.

FAQ

Frequently Asked Questions

12 QUESTIONS

Possibly — whether partial fault bars or reduces your recovery depends entirely on your state's negligence law. There are three main frameworks. In pure comparative negligence states (California, New York, and others), you can recover even if you were 99% at fault — your compensation is simply reduced by your percentage of fault. In modified comparative negligence states (most states), you can recover only if you were less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state's specific threshold. In pure contributory negligence states (Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and Washington D.C.), any fault on your part — even 1% — completely bars your recovery. Property owners and their insurers routinely try to assign blame to the victim, claiming you were distracted by your phone, wearing inappropriate footwear, or ignoring obvious hazards. An attorney can help counter these arguments with evidence about the hazard's condition, the adequacy of any warnings, and the reasonableness of your conduct.

The full investigation

Part of the Slip and Fall Investigation