Glossary
Pure comparative fault
The version of comparative negligence that lets you recover something even if you were mostly at fault, reduced by your share.
General information, not legal advice. Talk to a licensed attorney in your state.
Quick answer
Pure comparative fault is a rule for sharing blame. Your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, but you are never shut out completely: a driver found 90% at fault can still recover the other 10% of their proven damages. It is the most forgiving of the fault rules used in the US.
In a car accident claim#
Blame is often shared. One driver was speeding, the other turned without looking. An insurer, and later a jury, puts a percentage on each side, and your recovery is cut by yours.
The pure rule is used in 9 states, including California, where it comes from the court decision Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804. Most other states use a modified rule that cuts off recovery once your share passes a set bar, and a few still use Contributory negligence. An older rule, still used in a few places, under which any fault of your own can bar you from recovering anything. Glossary. The fault-rule explainer shows what each percentage means in each state, and the state guides explain the rest of the local rules.
Because both drivers can recover from each other, each side's insurer may pay part of the other's losses in the same crash.
Example#
Related terms#
Questions people ask
Is pure comparative fault the same as comparative negligence?
It is one type of it. Comparative negligence is the umbrella name for rules that reduce damages by your share of fault. "Pure" means there is no cutoff; "modified" versions bar recovery past a set share.
Can you recover if you were mostly at fault?
In a pure comparative fault state, yes, in principle: your proven damages are reduced by your share, however large. In a modified or contributory state, a large share of fault can end the claim. A licensed attorney in your state can explain how fault is likely to be argued.
Sources
- Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, Comparative negligence — pure and modified comparative negligence
- Supreme Court of California, Li v. Yellow Cab Co. (1975) 13 Cal.3d 804 (via SCOCAL) — as of October 2026
Last reviewed October 29, 2026 by the Accident Claim Facts editorial team. Found an error? Tell us.
Keep reading
- GlossaryGlossaryShort, plain-English definitions of the legal and insurance terms that come up after a crash, each with an example, related terms and the sources behind it.
- ToolFault-rule explainer: how your share of blame changes a claimSlide your share of the blame and choose a state to see whether its fault rule lets you recover, and what share of your proven damages you could still claim.
- States and citiesStates A–ZFiling deadlines for injury, vehicle damage and wrongful death claims, and the fault rule, for all 50 states and Washington, DC, each linked to the statute or…
- City guideCar accidents in Los Angeles: deadlines, reports and city claimsLos Angeles follows California's two-year injury deadline and pure comparative fault, but a claim against the city or county must be filed within six months…
- GlossaryQuantum meruitPayment for the reasonable value of work already done when there is no completed contract to pay under, such as a lawyer discharged before a case ends.
- GlossaryRecorded statementAn interview, often by phone, that an adjuster records about how the crash happened and how you were hurt.