Every personal injury case in the United States revolves around one central concept: fault. In many situations—such as car accidents, slip-and-falls, or product liability incidents—more than one party may share responsibility for the harm caused. That’s where comparative negligence laws come into play. Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that determines how much each party’s level of fault affects their ability to receive compensation.

Different states handle comparative negligence in different ways. While some (like New Mexico) practice pure comparative negligence, others (including Illinois) follow a modified comparative negligence rule. We will explain the difference and what that means for your personal injury claim.

What Is Comparative Negligence?

Comparative negligence is a legal principle used when multiple parties share blame for an injury. Rather than a strict “all or nothing” approach—where one party is entirely at fault and the other is blameless—comparative negligence assigns liability based on each party’s contribution to an accident.

For instance, if you’re involved in a car crash and you were slightly speeding when another driver ran a stop sign, the court might find both drivers partially responsible. Comparative negligence aims to equitably reduce a plaintiff’s compensation by the exact percentage of fault attributed to them.

This system contrasts with contributory negligence, which is used in a few states, where any fault on the plaintiff’s part can bar them from recovering damages. Comparative negligence, therefore, tends to be more forgiving, but the rules for how much fault bars recovery differ depending on the state.

Understanding the Differences Between Pure Comparative Negligence and Modified Comparative Negligence

Pure Comparative Negligence

Under pure comparative negligence, an injured party can receive compensation even if they’re almost entirely to blame for the accident. In the states that use this approach, a claimant who is 99% at fault can still recover 1% of their damages. So, if your total damages amount to $100,000 and you’re found to be 99% responsible, you’d technically still collect $1,000.

• Pros: Allows those who bear significant responsibility for an accident to still receive something.
• Cons: If your level of fault is high, your award can be extremely small, and legal battles can become contentious as each side tries to limit their share of fault.

Modified Comparative Negligence

In modified comparative negligence states, the right to compensation depends on a threshold of fault, typically 50% or 51%. Illinois uses a 50% rule, where if you’re found to be 50% or more at fault, you cannot receive compensation. If your fault is less than 50%, you can still recover damages—though they’re reduced by your percentage of fault. So in the example above where total damages are $100,000, if you are found to be 40% at fault, you receive $40,000; 30% at fault, $30,000, etc. 

Illinois’s Modified Comparative Negligence Law

Illinois follows what’s often referred to as the “50% bar rule.” Under this version of modified comparative negligence, you cannot recover any damages if you’re found to be at least 50% responsible for your own injuries. Conversely, if you’re deemed 49% or less at fault, you can still recover—your compensation is simply reduced by that percentage.

According to the Illinois Department of Insurance, each party’s share of fault in an accident or injury is determined by evaluating all available evidence. This may involve police reports, witness statements, traffic camera footage, and expert testimony. Insurance companies or a court of law then assign percentages of fault to each party involved.

Why does this matter? Because fault determines whether you get compensation at all. If you’re on the wrong side of that 50% line, you walk away empty-handed. The consequences can be devastating even if you’re just 1% over. That’s why gathering strong evidence and presenting a credible narrative about who caused the accident can be the difference between recovering substantial damages and recovering nothing.

Examples of Modified Comparative Negligence in Illinois

Example 1: Minor Shared Fault

Imagine you’re driving 10 miles over the speed limit when another driver, who’s texting, runs a red light and crashes into you. Investigations show you share 20% of the fault because you were speeding. Under Illinois’s modified comparative fault rules, you can still collect damages—80% of the total settlement. If your damages amount to $50,000, you’d receive $40,000 (80% of $50,000).

Example 2: Approaching the 50% Threshold

Now suppose you’re driving too fast for snowy conditions at night, and the other driver is also speeding. Evidence reveals you’re both going too fast and ignoring weather-related advisories. You get nothing if a jury decides you’re 50% or more at fault. If you’re found 49% at fault, you’ll recover just over half your damages.

Minimizing Fault with Legal Representation

When insurance adjusters or courts evaluate a personal injury case, they examine every element of an accident to assign blame. From traffic records and phone usage to witness statements and police reports, the investigation can unearth details that drastically shift fault percentages. Having a knowledgeable attorney on your side can be the key to navigating these complexities and minimizing your share of fault.

Investigative Work

A good attorney will conduct a thorough investigation—collecting police reports, speaking with witnesses, consulting medical professionals, and possibly hiring accident reconstruction experts. By gathering detailed evidence, your lawyer can build a case that emphasizes the other party’s role in the accident and challenges any overblown accusations against you.

Negotiation and Litigation Skills

If an insurance company tries to pin more than 50% of the blame on you, an experienced lawyer can negotiate or take your case to court to contest that percentage. Their goal is straightforward: keep your fault assignment below the 50% bar so you remain eligible for compensation. They’ll also fight to lower any fault assigned to you, ensuring you receive the maximum possible share of damages.

Financial Consequences

Remember that even a small difference in the assigned fault percentage can translate into thousands—or even tens of thousands—of dollars. Every percentage point matters, especially in serious accidents involving significant medical bills, lost wages, and lasting physical or emotional harm. An Illinois personal injury attorney can help preserve as much of your settlement or verdict as possible.

Conclusion

Modified comparative negligence in Illinois makes your percentage of fault a critical component of any personal injury claim. If you’re 50% or more responsible for an accident, you won’t recover a dime—no matter how severe your injuries may be. If you’ve been injured in Illinois, don’t leave your compensation to chance.

---