Verified against court and regulatory records · No upfront fees · Your information is never sold
Quick Eligibility Review
Answer one question at a time. This usually takes under 2 minutes.
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
The full investigation