What is Modified Comparative Negligence?

Modified comparative negligence is a legal rule used to determine fault in accidents. Under this system, an injured party can recover damages only if their share of fault does not reach a certain threshold—typically 50% or 51%, depending on the state. If the injured party is equally or more at fault, they cannot recover damages from the other party.

Understanding fault and liability is crucial when dealing with personal injury cases in Nevada. The state follows a modified comparative negligence rule, which affects how damages are awarded when more than one party shares responsibility for an accident.

This article from our personal injury resources, we explain how Nevada’s modified comparative negligence system works, who decides fault, and what it means for injured parties seeking compensation.

What is Modified Comparative Negligence?

Modified comparative negligence is a legal principle that allows injured parties to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for an accident, as long as their fault does not exceed a specified threshold (typically 50% or 51%). This system balances fairness by reducing compensation based on the injured party’s share of blame, encouraging accountability among all parties involved.

The “51% Bar Rule” in Nevada

Nevada follows the “51% bar rule” under its modified comparative negligence system. This means that an injured party can recover damages as long as their share of fault in causing the accident does not exceed 50%.

If a person is found to be 51% or more at fault, they are completely barred from recovering any damages. This rule aims to balance fairness by allowing partially responsible victims to seek compensation while preventing those primarily responsible from benefiting from a claim.

This encourages all parties involved to take responsibility for their actions and ensures that damages are allocated proportionally based on each party’s degree of fault.

Who Decides Comparative Negligence

Deciding comparative negligence in cases is a critical step in the legal process. Typically, the responsibility of deciding the percentage of fault assigned to each party falls to the jury in a trial setting. However, in some cases, judges or arbitrators may also make this determination, especially in bench trials or alternative dispute resolution processes.

Here are the key parties involved in deciding comparative negligence:

• Jury: In most personal injury cases, the jury listens to all the evidence presented during the trial. They evaluate witness testimonies, expert opinions, and physical evidence to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident.
• Judge: In bench trials where there is no jury, the judge assumes the role of deciding fault percentages based on the facts and law presented.
• Arbitrator or Mediator: In alternative dispute resolution, an arbitrator or mediator may help the parties reach an agreement on fault allocation without going to trial.
• Expert Witnesses: Experts such as accident reconstruction specialists or medical professionals can provide critical testimony that helps clarify fault and the extent of injuries, influencing the decision-makers.
• Attorneys: While not decision-makers, attorneys play a crucial role in presenting evidence, arguing fault, and advocating for their client’s interests to influence the determination of comparative negligence.

Comparative Negligence Can Prevent a Lawsuit

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allocates fault among parties involved in an accident or injury. Depending on state rules, a person’s ability to recover damages may be limited or barred if they are partially responsible. States use different standards, from strict contributory negligence to more flexible comparative negligence systems.

Here are the main types of negligence laws affecting recovery in personal injury cases:

Contributory Negligence

This is the oldest form of negligence law, adopted by the American colonies from English law. Under contributory negligence if you are even 1% at fault you can’t recover anything from a lawsuit even if the other party is 99% at fault. Because of its strictness this rule has fallen out of favor and only a handful of states including Virginia and North Carolina still use it.

Pure Comparative Negligence

At the other end is pure comparative negligence. Under this system you can recover as long as the other party is at least 1% at fault. Even if you are 99% at fault you can still recover a portion of damages that corresponds to the other party’s degree of fault. This system has become more popular over time with states like California and Florida using this model.

Modified Comparative Negligence—50% Bar Rule

Most states have moved away from both extremes and use a modified comparative negligence standard. Under the “50% bar rule” you can only recover if your percentage of fault is less than 50%. If you are 50% or more at fault you can’t sue.

Modified Comparative Negligence—51% Bar Rule

Nevada follows the modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar, meaning injured parties can recover damages as long as they are not more than 50% at fault for the accident. For example, if a pedestrian in Las Vegas is hit by a car while jaywalking but is found only 40% at fault, they can still recover 60% of their damages from the driver. This rule ensures fair compensation while encouraging personal responsibility.

Examples of Comparative Negligence

To better understand how comparative negligence works in practice, here are three common examples illustrating different scenarios:

Modified Comparative Negligence in Car Accident Cases

Two drivers, Alice and Bob, collide at an intersection. Alice ran a red light, but Bob was speeding. The court finds Alice 60% at fault and Bob 40% at fault. In a modified comparative negligence state with a 51% bar, Bob can recover damages reduced by his 40% share of fault, but Alice cannot recover since she is more than 51% at fault.

Modified Comparative Negligence in Slip and Fall Cases

Sarah slips on a wet floor in a grocery store. The store failed to display a warning sign, but Sarah was texting and not watching where she was walking. The jury finds the store 70% at fault and Sarah 30% at fault. Sarah can recover 70% of her damages.

Modified Comparative Negligence in Medical Malpractice Cases

John doesn’t follow his doctor’s post-surgery instructions and his condition worsens. The jury determines the doctor is 60% at fault for the injury, while John is 40% at fault for not following instructions. John can still recover 60% of his damages.

Get a Free Case Evaluation

If you’ve been injured in a personal injury accident under Nevada’s modified comparative negligence laws, the experienced attorneys at Ladah Injury & Car Accident Lawyers Las Vegas can help. They will investigate your case, prove fault, and ensure you recover fair compensation.

Don’t let confusion or fear of partial fault stop you from seeking justice. Contact us for a free case evaluation and expert guidance through the legal process.

Call now or visit their website to schedule your free consultation and start your path to compensation.

Related

How to Choose a Personal Injury Lawyer in Las Vegas

How Much is My Personal Injury Case Worth in Las Vegas?