Fault & Liability In A Crash (And Why It Matters)
Fault rules vary by state and directly control what you can recover after a car accident.
After a crash, your State's fault rules determine who can recover compensation, how much can be claimed, and whether you are legally barred from any financial recovery at all.
Fault Rules in All 50 States: Find Out What Applies to Your Crash
Every state below uses $100,000 in total damages as the baseline. Same crash. Same broken bones. The only variable is your state's rule and the percentage of fault a jury pins on you.
| State | Fault Rule | Recovery Bar | Statute | $100K Example |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Contributory | Any fault bars recovery | ARCP, Rule 8(c) | You are 1% at fault You collect $0 |
| Alaska | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | Alaska Stat. § 09.17.060 | You are 60% at fault You collect $40,000 |
| Arizona | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | A.R.S. § 12-2505 | You are 70% at fault You collect $30,000 |
| Arkansas | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | A.C.A. § 16-64-122 | You are 49% at fault You collect $51,000 |
| California | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | Cal. Civ. Code § 1714 | You are 80% at fault You collect $20,000 |
| Colorado | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | C.R.S. § 13-21-111 | You are 50% at fault You collect $0 |
| Connecticut | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | C.G.S.A. § 52-572h | You are 50% at fault You collect $50,000 |
| Delaware | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | 10 Del. C. § 8132 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| District of Columbia | Contributory | Any fault bars recoveryException: 51% bar for pedestrians & cyclists (2016) | Wingfield v. People's Drug Store, 379 A.2d 685 (D.C. 1994) | You are 5% at fault You collect $0 |
| Florida | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recoveryChanged from pure comparative 3/24/2023 (HB 837). Med mal stays pure comparative. | F.S.A. § 768.81 (HB 837, eff. 3/24/2023) | You are 51% at fault You collect $0Before HB 837 you would have collected $49,000 |
| Georgia | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | O.C.G.A. § 51-11-7; § 51-12-33 | You are 50% at fault You collect $0 |
| Hawaii | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 663-31 | You are 40% at fault You collect $60,000 |
| Idaho | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | Idaho Code § 6-801 | You are 49% at fault You collect $51,000 |
| Illinois | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | 735 I.L.C.S. § 5/2-1116 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Indiana | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | I.C. § 34-51-2-6 | You are 50% at fault You collect $50,000 |
| Iowa | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | I.C.A. § 668.3 | You are 35% at fault You collect $65,000 |
| Kansas | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | K.S.A. § 60-258a | You are 50% at fault You collect $0 |
| Kentucky | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | K.R.S. § 411.182 | You are 75% at fault You collect $25,000 |
| Louisiana | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | La. Civ. Code Art. 2323 | You are 55% at fault You collect $45,000 |
| Maine | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recoveryJury reduces by dollar amount, not percentage | 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 | You are 40% at fault You collect $60,000 |
| Maryland | Contributory | Any fault bars recovery | Bd. of Cty. Comm'r v. Bell Atlantic, 695 A.2d 171 (Md. 1997) | You are 2% at fault You collect $0 |
| Massachusetts | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | M.G.L.A. 231 § 85 | You are 45% at fault You collect $55,000 |
| Michigan | Hybrid | 51%+ bars non-economic damagesPure comparative for medical bills & lost wages. 51% bar for pain and suffering only. | M.C.L.A. § 600.2959; § 600.6304 | You are 55% at fault ($60K economic, $40K non-economic) You collect $27,000$27K economic only. Non-economic barred at 51%+ |
| Minnesota | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | M.S.A. § 604.01 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Mississippi | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | M.C.A. § 11-7-15 | You are 90% at fault You collect $10,000 |
| Missouri | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 537.765 | You are 65% at fault You collect $35,000 |
| Montana | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702 | You are 30% at fault You collect $70,000 |
| Nebraska | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.09 | You are 50% at fault You collect $0 |
| Nevada | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | N.R.S. § 41.141 | You are 50% at fault You collect $50,000 |
| New Hampshire | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:7-d | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| New Jersey | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | N.J.S.A. § 2A:15-5.1 | You are 25% at fault You collect $75,000 |
| New Mexico | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | Scott v. Rizzo, 634 P.2d 1234 (N.M. 1981) | You are 85% at fault You collect $15,000 |
| New York | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1411 | You are 80% at fault You collect $20,000 |
| North Carolina | Contributory | Any fault bars recovery | Smith v. Fiber Controls Corp., 268 S.E.2d 504 (N.C. 1980) | You are 3% at fault You collect $0 |
| North Dakota | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | N.D.C.C. § 32-03.2-02 | You are 35% at fault You collect $65,000 |
| Ohio | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2315.33 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Oklahoma | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 23 § 13 | You are 20% at fault You collect $80,000 |
| Oregon | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Or. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 31.600 | You are 50% at fault You collect $50,000 |
| Pennsylvania | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Rhode Island | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 | You are 95% at fault You collect $5,000 |
| South Carolina | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Ross v. Paddy, 340 S.C. 428, 532 S.E.2d 612 (2000) | You are 40% at fault You collect $60,000 |
| South Dakota | Slight/Gross | Recover only if your fault is "slight" and defendant's is "gross"No fixed %. Court decides case by case. | S.D.C.L. § 20-9-2 | Court rules your fault "slight" You collect (reduced)No formula. Jury decides dollar reduction. |
| Tennessee | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-11-103 | You are 50% at fault You collect $0 |
| Texas | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 33.001–33.017 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Utah | Modified 50% Bar | 50%+ fault bars recovery | U.C.A. § 78B-5-818 | You are 30% at fault You collect $70,000 |
| Vermont | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 12, § 1036 | You are 15% at fault You collect $85,000 |
| Virginia | Contributory | Any fault bars recovery | Va. Civil Model Jury Instruction No. 6.000 | You are 1% at fault You collect $0 |
| Washington | Pure Comparative | No bar. Reduced by fault % | R.C.W.A. § 4.22 | You are 75% at fault You collect $25,000 |
| West Virginia | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recoveryChanged from 50% bar eff. 5/25/2015 | W. Va. Code § 55-7-13a | You are 50% at fault You collect $50,000 |
| Wisconsin | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Wis. Stat. § 895.045 | You are 51% at fault You collect $0 |
| Wyoming | Modified 51% Bar | 51%+ fault bars recovery | Wyo. Stat. § 1-1-109(b) | You are 45% at fault You collect $55,000 |
- Personal Injury Lawyers
- Auto Accident Injury Lawyers
- Truck Accident Injury Lawyers
- Tanker Truck Accidents Lawyers
- Delivery Truck Accident Lawyers
- Drunk Driving Accident Lawyers
- Hit-and-Run Accident Lawyers
- Rear-End Accident Lawyers
- Traumatic Brain Injury Lawyers
- Rideshare Accident Lawyers
- Motorcycle Accident Lawyers
- Pedestrian Accident Lawyers
- Fatal Car Accident Lawyers
- Wrongful Death Lawyers
Common Law: The Four Basic Levels of Fault
Most of the legal rules surrounding personal injury cases are built upon common law and how it defines tort. In the common law definition of fault, a motorist who causes the accident has committed a tort. Not necessarily a crime, tort is defined as when a person commits an act resulting in the loss or private harm (a civil wrong action) and common law (which can and does differ from state to state) recognizes four basic levels of fault.
Common Law: Four Levels of Fault.
- Negligence
- Recklessness or wanton conduct
- Intentional misconduct
- Strict liability (regardless of fault)
Negligence: Occurs when a defendant fails to take proper care in performing some action which results in harm or damage. Examples include: failing to yield when driving resulting in a crash or running a red light or motorists who run a red light with their vehicle.
Recklessness or wanton conduct: Irresponsible behavior which results in the harm of another breaches the legal duties one has to conduct themselves in a responsible manner. A willful disregard for the safety and welfare of others. Such conduct breaches the legal duty of care we are all obligated to. For example: Erratic driving, speeding, running red lights, and other wild driver behavior would be considered a failure to drive in a reasonably responsible manner. Torts which results from such careless conduct, while tragic, are still considered accidents generally.
Intentional misconduct: Actions such as drunk driving leading to an accident would fall under the definition of intentional misconduct.
Strict Liability (regardless of fault): Most commonly in defective product cause injuries, strict liability refers to fault without consideration of intent. In other words, the plaintiff need only prove the alleged tort occurred as a direct result of the product in question. For example, if your being hit was the fault of the other driver but a defective traffic light caused the driver to turn and caused the accident.
Determining fault in general negligence accidents can become complicated quickly, as you can see. Ultimately, fault is either determined by common law or created by statutory violation.
Comparative Fault vs. Pure Contributory Negligence Rule
Not all states recognize comparative fault or the pure contributory negligence rule. Only four states and D.C. recognize pure contributory negligence rule and eleven states pure comparatavie fault rule.
States have many different methods of allocating fault to a cause of action. To complicate matters further, methods of applying culpability may or may not be applied to different types of negligence claims. For example: the rules one state uses to apply legal responsibility may apply to negligence in a car crash claim and not in a product liability case. The best personal injury attorneys know in evaluating claims that determining legal fault and by extension liability can get complicated fast.
Pure Contributory Negligence: Known as proportionate responsibility, pure contributory negligence when recognized prevents recovery for any damages if the plaintiff is even 1% at fault. In the four states which recognize this system (and the District of Columbia), if motorist negligence is found to have contributed to causing accident, even the damaged party is only found to be 5% at fault, they are not entitled to recovery. There are exceptions, notably if the damaged party can prove willful & reckless on behalf of the defendant or that a clear chance was available to avoid the crash which the defendant failed to take.
Pure Comparative Fault: In this scenario, damaged parties are entitled to the recovery of damages even if it is established they are partially to blame, but the amount is reduced proportionally based on the degree of fault. States which recognize pure comparative fault include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington. Florida retains pure comparative only for medical malpractice claims since March 24, 2023.
Modified Comparative Fault: This system consists of two methods of dealing with accountability, the 50% Bar Rule, and the 51% Bar Rule. The rules represent the established benchmark, or cut-off point for assigned fault, at which a damaged party may be able to recover damages. In states recognizing the 50% Bar Rule, plaintiffs who are established to be at fault to a degree of 50% or greater are not entitled to recover damages. While 51% Bar Rule states, like in Florida, prevent recovery for damaged parties who are 51% or higher found to be at fault in an accident.
This is a very basic explanation of the different approaches to the impact the degree of fault can have on a claim and how it is handled. How states handle responsibility and subsequent recovery options can vary and your legal counsel will be able to help unravel how the rules are likely applied to your situation in the event of a claim.
Ultimately, all this work to determine precise measurements of fault in the event of an accident is to one purpose - determining who is accountable to pay for recovery. When damages can climb into the millions of dollars, the stakes are high.
Insurance Liability: Who Pays?
In the event of an accident, determining legal responsibility takes on great significance as the parties involved fight to be made whole. Motor vehicle collisions usually involve insurance companies seeking to limit their liability and as a result what they may be obligated to pay.
Determining the degree of responsibility all the involved parties in a collision have can swing the size of settlements and recovery significantly. Insurers have a clear interest to manage accountability where legally possible.
Matters complicate further still if the crash involves un-insured drivers or under-insured drivers which we cover in more detail elsewhere as the issue is a complex topic of its own.
Car Accident Scenario Examples
How is Fault Determined in a Hit-and-Run accident?
Drivers who flee the scene of an auto accident they will generally be considered at-fault and responsible for compensation if they can be identified. However, doesn't necessarily mean the hit-and-run driver bears all the fault for the collision - important in comparative negligence states. Be sure to report the accident to the police as more than half of hit and run drivers are identified after the incident.
Who is At Fault in a Rear-End Accident?
The vast majority of rear-end collisions result in the driver of the vehicle which strikes the car in front being at-fault. Failing to maintain a safe distance and speed in order to avoid a crash in the event of a sudden stop generally results in the rear driver bearing responsibility. This is not ALWAYS the case, however. A sudden negligent maneuver by the front driver causing their being hit from behind, other reckless actions, or the involvement of drugs and/or alcohol are examples which can place some share of blame on the front driver.
How Is Fault Determined in a Multi-Vehicle Car Accident?
When multiple vehicles vehicles are involved in a chain reaction accident, for example a multi-car pileup on the highway, determining fault becomes tricky. The initial cause of the multi-vehicle collision will generally fall upon the first car to strike another setting the chain of events in motion. From the first collision which initiated the event, what happened to each vehicle involved in the multi-vehicle crash as they strike the next will be scrutinized for potential fault. These cases get complex, tailgating, dui/dwi, reckless speed, vehicle defects, and several other factors can ultimately play a role in determining who's at fault.
Who Is At Fault In a Sideswipe Accident?
The driver changing lanes in a sideswipe car accident is usually at fault, as this driver is responsible for making sure it is safe before they change lanes. In some cases the driver drifts into the wrong lane hitting the side of the other motor vehicle after not paying attention to the road. We most commonly encounter this type of side-impact accident occuring when two lanes merge at the on-ramp the interstate highway. However, the driver changing lanes may have been forced to swerve by the reckless driving of another vehicle in order to avoid a more serious wreck. Ultimately it will be the driver whose negligence caused the sideswipe accident who is at-fault.
Common Causes of Car Accidents
The following are typical causes of car accidents which involve an involved drivers failure to use reasonable care. Any of these may be a reason to determine a drivers actions as negligent.
- Speeding
- Reckless driving
- Tailgating
- Driving while impaired by drugs or alcohol (DUI/DWI)
- Driver fatigue
- Distracted driving
- Unsafe lane change
- Improper turns
- Traffic law violations
- Dangerous roadway
- Inclement weather
While the insurers are often on the hook after an accident involves a covered policy holder, accountability isn't always restricted to motorists. City governments can be found responsible for unsafe roadway conditions contributing to an accident. For example, a number of railway crossing accidents have been attributed to broken safety lights or blocked warning signs or other similar contributing factors which the city failed to take reasonable care to remedy. In such cases the city can be found at fault and therefor liable for damages.
Get Expert Legal Help After a Crash
We assist crash victims who suffer personal injury throughout the nation.
We handle all types of motor vehicle accidents, including rear end collisions, head on crashes, T bone impacts, rollover accidents, multi vehicle pileups, hit and run incidents, and rideshare collisions.
Our firm represents clients injured in crashes involving passenger cars, commercial trucks, delivery vans, motorcycles, buses, government vehicles, and rental cars.
If you or a loved one has been hurt and need legal help, contact Lawsuit Legal about your potential case now.
Free Case Evaluation
FILL OUT THE FORM BELOW
TO REQUEST YOUR CASE REVIEW