Skip Navigation 
Winning personal injury cases in contributory negligence states can be challenging. Under this harsh standard, a plaintiff cannot pursue any compensation if they contributed to their injuries in any way.
Fortunately, Texas is not a contributory negligence state – making it much easier for a plaintiff to seek compensation even if they are partially at fault for an accident. Texas uses a modified comparative negligence system for personal injury cases, which means you can pursue compensation for your injuries and other losses as long as your level of fault is 50 percent or less.
To protect your right to seek compensation, it’s essential to understand comparative negligence, how it differs from contributory negligence, and what you must do to prove a personal injury case.
What Is the Definition of Negligence?
In personal injury cases, negligence occurs when someone acts without the level of care a reasonable person would in similar circumstances. In other words, negligence means a person failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent an accident or injury.
For instance, many car accidents occur because one driver fails to follow traffic regulations and hits another driver. When a driver’s negligent actions lead to a car accident, the driver could be liable for the resulting injuries and expenses. However, more than one driver or party can contribute to an accident. When this happens, comparative negligence will play a part in determining who can pursue compensation for their losses.
What Is Comparative Negligence?
Comparative negligence is a standard used to determine whether someone can seek compensation in a personal injury case when it appears that the plaintiff may share blame for the accident. An insurance company, judge, or jury will evaluate the evidence in a case and compare the relative fault of each party to determine who – if anyone – will receive compensation.
However, a plaintiff’s compensation will be reduced by their degree of fault. For example, if a plaintiff seeks $100,000 in losses and is 60 percent responsible for the accident, the most they could recover would be $40,000.
There are two types of comparative negligence standards used in personal injury cases:
- Pure – Some states have a pure comparative negligence system, allowing a plaintiff to seek compensation for their injuries even if they bear most of the fault for an accident. Theoretically, a plaintiff could recover compensation even if they are 99 percent to blame for their injuries.
- Modified – Some states, including Texas, follow a modified comparative negligence system. In Texas, a plaintiff who is partially at fault for an accident can recover compensation as long as they are no more than 50 percent to blame for the accident.
How Does Comparative Negligence Differ from Contributory Negligence?
In states that use comparative negligence rules, a plaintiff can recover compensation after an accident even if they bear some responsibility for their injuries. Different states have different rules regarding how much a plaintiff can have contributed to their injuries and still recover compensation. However, a comparative negligence system generally allows flexibility in cases where the plaintiff shares blame for an accident.
In states that use a contributory negligence system, by contrast, a plaintiff cannot recover compensation if they bear any responsibility for an accident. Even if a plaintiff is just one percent responsible for their injuries, the law prevents them from claiming any compensation. Thankfully, only a handful of states use a pure contributory negligence system – and Texas is not one of them.
What Is the 51-Percent Bar?
The 51-percent bar is the Texas law that says personal injury plaintiffs cannot recover compensation after an accident if their percentage of fault is 51 percent or more. In other words, if the plaintiff’s degree of responsibility is greater than the defendant’s, the plaintiff cannot recover any compensation. If a plaintiff’s percentage of fault is 50 percent or less, their compensation is reduced by their degree of responsibility.
How Is Fault Proven in the Accident?
Many personal injury cases are based on the legal theory of negligence. There are four elements involved in proving negligence. Before a personal injury plaintiff can recover compensation from a defendant, an attorney must prove the following:
- Duty of care – The plaintiff must show the defendant had a legal responsibility to avoid causing any injuries to the plaintiff. In a car accident case, for example, all drivers have a legal duty to follow traffic laws and take reasonable precautions to avoid causing an accident.
- Breach of duty – The next step in proving that a defendant was negligent is showing how they failed in their duty of care to the plaintiff. In a car accident, a defendant may have breached their duty of care by speeding, ignoring traffic signals, or driving aggressively.
- Causation – A plaintiff in a personal injury case must show that the defendant’s breach of duty caused the accident that resulted in their injuries.
- Damages or losses – They must also provide evidence showing how the defendant’s actions led to actual damages or losses. Examples of compensable losses might include medical bills for treating accident-related injuries, loss of income, or physical pain and suffering.
Some types of evidence that plaintiffs often use in personal injury cases include:
- Medical records
- Police reports
- Eyewitness accounts
- Photos from the accident scene
- Expert testimony
- Surveillance footage
- Forensic accident investigations
Contact a Texas Personal Injury Lawyer Now
Proving a personal injury case under the comparative negligence standard requires experience, dedication, and specialized knowledge. At The Wilhite Law Firm, our Dallas personal injury attorneys know what it takes to win these cases. We can gather the evidence necessary to prove your personal injury claim and demand compensation for your losses – even if you are partially at fault. Call us or visit our contact page today for a free case review.
