Accidents don’t always happen in neat, clear ways. Sometimes both parties share blame — maybe one driver was speeding while the other drifted into their lane, or a pedestrian crossed mid-block and a motorist failed to stop in time. In these situations, you might wonder: Can I still recover compensation if I was partly at fault?
The short answer is yes in most U.S. states, but how much you can recover depends on where the accident occurred and the specific law in that state. This principle is known as comparative negligence, and it is a central concept in U.S. personal injury law.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in injury cases to allocate fault between parties involved in an accident. Rather than barring recovery simply because you were partly at fault, courts assign each party a percentage of responsibility. Your compensation is then reduced in proportion to your share of fault.
For example, if a jury finds you were 20% at fault and the other driver 80% at fault, and the total damages are $100,000, you would be eligible to recover $80,000 — the other party’s share — reduced by your own 20% fault.
Comparative Negligence in Four Key States
California — Pure Comparative Fault
California follows a pure comparative negligence system. Under this rule, you can recover damages no matter how high your percentage of fault is, even if you were mostly responsible. Your award is simply reduced by whatever portion of fault the jury attributes to you.
Example: If you were found 90% at fault in a car crash but the total damages were $100,000, you could still recover $10,000 (10% of $100,000) from the other party.
This approach recognizes that even when someone contributed to their own injuries, the other party’s negligence still caused harm.
Florida — Modified Comparative Fault
Florida recently changed its law from pure comparative negligence to a modified comparative negligence system. Under current Florida law, you can only recover damages if you are not more than 50% at fault. If your portion of fault exceeds 50%, you generally cannot recover anything.
Example: If you are found 40% at fault and the other driver is 60% at fault in a slip and fall outside a store, you can recover 60% of your damages. But if you were 51% at fault, you would be barred from recovery entirely.
This modified approach is designed to prevent individuals who share equal or greater fault from recovering compensation from others.
New York — Pure Comparative Fault
Like California, New York follows pure comparative negligence under New York Civil Practice Law & Rules Section 1411. This means a plaintiff’s own negligent actions reduce damages proportionally but do not bar recovery at any level of fault.
New York courts have also clarified through case law that a defendant must prove a plaintiff’s negligence to have the recovery adjusted, but plaintiffs do not bear the initial burden of proving they were not negligent. For example, in Rodriguez v. City of New York, a court held that plaintiffs are not responsible for disproving their own comparative negligence when seeking partial summary judgment.
This system encourages individuals to pursue claims even if they may have contributed to the accident, while still allowing the jury to fairly apportion fault.
Nevada (Las Vegas) — Modified Comparative Fault With Joint and Several Liability
Nevada also uses a modified comparative negligence system with a 51% bar, meaning you cannot recover damages if you are more than 50% at fault.
However, Nevada has a unique twist: joint and several liability for economic damages. This means that when multiple defendants are involved and you are less at fault than they are, each defendant can be responsible for the full amount of economic damages (like medical bills and lost wages), even if they were less at fault.
For non-economic damages (pain and suffering), each defendant pays based on their proportionate share.
This rule can be especially important in tourist destinations like Las Vegas, where complex accidents may involve multiple negligent parties such as drivers, hotels, or entertainment venues.
How This Affects Your Claim
Understanding which negligence rule applies where your accident occurred is critical. In pure comparative negligence states like California and New York, you can almost always recover something — even if you share significant fault. In modified comparative negligence states like Florida and Nevada, you must be under the applicable fault threshold to recover damages.
A skilled personal injury attorney can:
- Analyze evidence and utilize expert testimony to argue for a lower percentage of your fault
- Advocate for maximum compensation based on state law
- Advise whether your accident falls within applicable thresholds
Bottom Line
Being partially at fault does not automatically bar you from filing a personal injury claim in most U.S. states. But the amount you can recover will often depend on:
- The state’s negligence rule where the accident occurred
- Your assigned percentage of fault
- The total damages in your claim
For German visitors or international travelers injured in popular destinations like California, Florida, New York, or Las Vegas, it’s important to know that U.S. law generally allows claims despite shared fault, but the rules vary — and legal guidance can make a substantial difference in protecting your rights.
If you were injured in the United States and are unsure whether you can file a claim because you may have been partly at fault, it is important to get accurate legal guidance as soon as possible. Comparative negligence laws vary by state, and even a small difference in how fault is assessed can significantly impact your compensation.
The attorneys at Urban Thier & Federer P.A. are experienced in representing international clients and visitors injured across the United States. To discuss your situation and understand your legal options, contact us at [email protected] or call +1 (212) 256-9527 for a confidential consultation.