What is Modified Comparative Negligence in Texas?

How Does Modified Comparative Negligence Affect Liability Decisions in Texas?

In Texas, liability in personal injury cases revolves around the concept of fault. Texas follows the principle of modified comparative fault in determining how damages are awarded when multiple parties share responsibility for an accident. This blog explores what modified comparative fault means in Texas, how it compares to other systems in the United States, and how it impacts liability decisions. We’ll also examine where this law is found in the Texas statutes and provide a comparison table of fault models nationwide.

What Is Modified Comparative Negligence?

Modified comparative fault is a legal doctrine that allocates damages based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party involved in an incident. Texas uses a modified comparative fault rule with a “50% bar”. This means:

• A plaintiff can recover damages only if they are 50% or less at fault for the incident.
• If the plaintiff is found to be over 50% at fault, they are barred from recovering any damages.

For example, if a jury finds a plaintiff 40% at fault for a car accident and the defendant 60% at fault, the plaintiff can recover 60% of their damages. However, if the plaintiff is 51% at fault, they recover nothing.

Where Is the Modified Comparative Liability Rule Found in Texas Law?

The modified comparative fault rule in Texas is codified in Section 33.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, as part of the Texas Proportionate Responsibility Statute. This statute outlines the rules for assigning fault and calculating damages in civil cases. Sections 33.003 and 33.012 provide additional guidance on how juries allocate fault and reduce damages accordingly.

How Modified Comparative Fault Impacts Liability in Texas

When a personal injury claim goes to trial, a jury determines each party’s percentage of fault. Based on this determination:

• The plaintiff’s damages are reduced by their percentage of fault.
• If the plaintiff’s fault exceeds 50%, they cannot recover any damages.

For example, if a plaintiff incurs $100,000 in damages and is found 40% at fault, their recovery will be reduced to $60,000. Conversely, if they are 51% at fault, they recover nothing. This same evaluation is discussed and considered in settling personal injury cases. 

Comparing Fault Models in the United States

The United States employs three primary models for handling shared fault in personal injury cases:

• Pure Comparative Fault: Plaintiffs can recover damages regardless of their percentage of fault, even if they are 99% at fault. Damages are reduced proportionally to their fault.
• Modified Comparative Fault: Plaintiffs can recover damages only if their fault is below a specific threshold (usually 50% or 51%).
• Contributory Negligence: Plaintiffs are barred from recovering any damages if they share any fault for the accident, even as little as 1%.

Comparison of Fault Models

Fault Model	Threshold for Recovery	States Using This Model
Pure Comparative Fault	No threshold; plaintiffs can recover damages even if 99% at fault	California, Florida, New York, and others
Modified Comparative Fault (50% Bar)	Plaintiffs can recover if their fault is 50% or less	Texas, Arkansas, Colorado, and others
Modified Comparative Fault (51% Bar)	Plaintiffs can recover if their fault is less than 51%	Nebraska, Kansas, and others
Contributory Negligence	No recovery if the plaintiff has any fault	Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, and others

Key Takeaways for Plaintiffs and Defendants

For Plaintiffs:

In Texas, personal injury attorneys typically won’t take cases where the client is majority at fault. Since attorneys generally work on contingency fees in personal injury cases, they cannot justify investing time and resources into cases where Texas law explicitly bars recovery.

• Prove the other party’s negligence to minimize your percentage of fault.
• Understand the 50% threshold; if your fault exceeds 50%, you cannot recover damages.
• Work with an attorney to build a strong case and reduce your liability.

For Defendants:

For defendants in Texas, this rule is advantageous as they can completely avoid paying damages if they can prove the plaintiff was 51% or more at fault. Even if the defendant is found partially responsible but less than 51%, they only pay their proportional share of the damages.

• Shift blame to reduce your percentage of responsibility.
• Focus on showing the plaintiff’s fault exceeds 50% to bar their recovery.
• Use proportionate responsibility as a negotiation tool in settlements.

Conclusion

Texas’ modified comparative fault system ensures accountability while allowing injured parties to recover damages if their fault is 50% or less. By codifying this rule in Section 33.001 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code, the state has established a fair balance between plaintiff and defendant rights.

If you’re involved in a personal injury case in Texas, understanding how fault is allocated can make all the difference. Whether you are seeking compensation or defending against a claim, work with an experienced attorney to navigate the complexities of proportionate responsibility.