Every state has its own rules for determining how much compensation an injured person can claim. Some states allow people to sue for damages even if they were mostly at fault. Others cut off compensation at a certain percentage. These different standards fall under what's called "comparative negligence," and it plays a big role in how Pennsylvania personal injury cases are resolved.
Pennsylvania follows a modified comparative negligence rule, which allows plaintiffs to recover damages only if they were less than 51% at fault for the accident. That means even if you think you might be partially responsible for what happened, you still have rights—and a chance to recover what you need.
How Comparative Negligence Works
Comparative negligence applies when both parties in an accident share some level of fault. Say you’re in a car accident where another driver was speeding, but you pulled out without fully checking for oncoming traffic. You may both be considered negligent. The court will then determine how much blame to assign to each party and adjust compensation accordingly.
In Pennsylvania, as long as you're less than 51% at fault, you're still eligible to recover damages. Your compensation will be reduced by your share of fault. If you're 25% at fault and your damages total $100,000, you would still be able to recover $75,000. But if you're 51% or more at fault, you can’t recover anything.
Modified vs. Pure Comparative Negligence
Pure comparative negligence allows plaintiffs to recover damages no matter how much fault they bear—even if they were 99% responsible. Their award is simply reduced by their percentage of fault.
Modified comparative negligence, used in Pennsylvania and most states, puts a cap on fault: plaintiffs must be 50% or less at fault to be eligible for recovery. Some states use a 50% cutoff, while others (like Pennsylvania) use 51%. In both versions, the compensation is reduced proportionally to the plaintiff’s share of fault.
Pure Contributory Negligence: The Harshest Rule
A handful of states follow pure contributory negligence, which is even more restrictive. Under this rule, if you’re found even 1% at fault, you’re barred from recovering anything. Fortunately, Pennsylvania does not use this harsh standard.
How Insurers Use Comparative Negligence to Pay Less
In cases like motorcycle accidents, insurance companies may try to shift as much blame as possible onto the rider. They'll lean into harmful stereotypes about motorcyclists—claiming they were speeding, weaving through traffic, or riding aggressively—to reduce their liability.
This strategy directly affects how much you’re offered in a settlement. If they convince a jury that you're 40% at fault, your recovery gets slashed by 40%. If they convince a jury you're 51% at fault? You get nothing.
That's why it's so important to have a lawyer who knows how to push back on those tactics. At HHR, we’ve spent decades confronting these biases in the courtroom. We know how to present clear, compelling evidence that puts fault where it belongs—and helps our clients recover what they’re owed.
The Importance of Early Legal Help
The earlier you contact a personal injury attorney, the better chance you have of protecting your rights. Time matters—not just because of Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations, but because it takes time to investigate the accident, gather evidence, and push back against exaggerated claims of fault.
Comparative negligence is complicated, but you don’t have to face it alone. If you’re unsure whether you can still file a claim, we’ll help you understand your options.
Call Handler, Henning & Rosenberg at (888) 498-3023 for a free consultation. We’ve been helping Pennsylvanians recover from life-altering injuries since 1922—let us fight for you too.