Pure comparative negligence
A rule that allows a claimant to recover damages even if they were 99% at fault, with the award reduced by their percentage of fault.
What it means in practice.
Eleven US states use pure comparative, including California, New York (outside car crash cases since May 2026), and Washington. Florida left it for a 51% bar in March 2023 and Louisiana did the same on January 1, 2026. Most of the UK and Australia operate similarly through their own statutory frameworks.
Under pure comparative fault, your own share of the blame reduces your damages but never wipes them out. A claimant who is 90% responsible can still recover the remaining 10%.
California adopted the rule by court decision in 1975, when its Supreme Court replaced contributory negligence in Li v. Yellow Cab. Arizona writes it into statute: the claimant’s action “is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion” to their fault. Kentucky and Missouri reached the same place through their courts.
Because the claim survives whatever the split, the argument at trial is about the percentage. A large verdict can turn into a much smaller judgment once the claimant’s share is taken off.
How it works in different places.
| Where | How it works | Source |
|---|---|---|
| California | Your negligence reduces your damages by your share but never bars recovery, even at 90%. | Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (Cal. 1975) |
| Arizona | The action is not barred; the full damages are reduced in proportion to your fault. | A.R.S. § 12-2505(A) |
| Missouri | Once the defendant is found negligent, your own conduct reduces the award but cannot bar the claim. | Gustafson v. Benda, as quoted in Payne v. Fiesta Corp. (Mo. Ct. App. 2018) |
| Kentucky | Pure comparative fault since 1984, with the jury assigning a percentage to each party. | KRS 411.182; Hilen v. Hays (Ky. 1984), as noted in Maupin v. Tankersley (Ky. App. 2018) |
| New York | Culpable conduct “shall not bar recovery” but reduces damages, except in no fault car crash suits filed from 26 May 2026. | CPLR 1411(a) and (b) |
| Arizona, a verdict | A pedestrian hit mid block at night was awarded $2,000,000 with 60% of the fault put on her; the verdict was affirmed. | Benedict v. Total Transit (Ariz. Ct. App. 2021) |
A worked example.
A $1 million verdict at 70% fault: Moody v. Dynamic Fitness (Mo. 2025)
- Injury
- Herniated neck disc during a push press in a gym class; two surgeries
- Jury verdict
- $1,000,000
- Fault on the claimant
- 70%
- Judgment
- $300,000
- Result on appeal
- Affirmed by the Supreme Court of Missouri
In a state with a 50% or 51% bar, a claimant found 70% at fault would have recovered nothing. Under Missouri’s pure comparative rule she kept 30% of the verdict.