Understanding Comparative Fault in Minnesota Personal Injury Law 

Nick Downes*

When someone is injured, it’s possible for more than one person to share some responsibility. Minnesota law recognizes this reality through its comparative fault system, which allows an injured person to recover damages even when they bear part of the blame—depending on the scenario. 

The doctrine of comparative fault ensures that compensation reflects each party’s degree of responsibility for the injury. Understanding how Minnesota allocates fault and reduces damages is critical for anyone involved in civil litigation, whether as an injured party, plaintiff’s lawyer, defense counsel, or insurer.  

Types of Negligence Laws 

States differ in their approach to apportioning fault. There are three prevailing views on negligence frameworks: contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, and modified comparative negligence.¹ 

Contributory Negligence 

Contributory negligence is the harshest framework. This system completely prevents an injured person from recovering any damages if they were even partially at fault for their own injuries.² Only four states, Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia still follow this approach.³

Pure Comparative Negligence 

Pure comparative fault allows a person to recover damages even if they are largely at fault for the incident.⁴ Their damages are reduced proportionally to their percentage of fault.⁵ For example, if a plaintiff sustains $100,000 in damages but is found to be 90% at fault for the incident, their recovery would be reduced by 90%. In this scenario, the plaintiff would receive $10,000.

Twelve states follow pure comparative negligence: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, and Washington.⁶

Modified Comparative Negligence  

Modified comparative negligence allows an injured person to recover damages if they are 50% or 51% at fault (depending on the state).⁷ Their total recovery is then reduced by the amount of their fault.⁸ However, if they are more than 50% or 51%, they are barred from recovering any damages.⁹ Thirty-three states follow some form of modified comparative negligence, with states split on following the 50% or 51% plaintiff bar.¹⁰

Minnesota’s Fault Framework 

Minnesota’s comparative fault framework is codified in Minn. Stat. § 604.01 (2024).¹¹ The statute provides:  

Contributory fault does not bar recovery in an action by any person or the person’s legal representative to recover damages for fault resulting in death, in injury to person or property, or in economic loss, if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought, but any damages allowed must be diminished in proportion to the amount of fault attributable to the person recovering.¹² 

Based on the language of the statute, “if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought,” we can see that Minnesota follows a modified comparative fault system with a 51% bar to recovery.¹³ Therefore, if a plaintiff is 51% at fault for an incident, they cannot recover anything. However, if they are 50% or less at fault, they can recover but their recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault.  

How This Works in Practice 

When a case goes to trial, the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) will be asked to determine two things: (1) the total amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff, and (2) the percentage of fault attributable to each party. Once the fault percentages are determined, the plaintiff’s damages are reduced accordingly.  

For example, if a jury awards $100,000 in damages and finds the plaintiff is 25% at fault, the final recovery is $75,000. In that same scenario, if the jury determines the plaintiff to be 51% at fault, they would be barred by the 51% rule and would recover nothing.  

Multiple Defendants / Joint Liability 

Many personal injury cases involve multiple parties contributing to the harm. Minnesota addresses this with joint and several liability rules under Minn. Stat. § 604.02 (2024).¹⁴ This rule applies mainly when multiple defendants are found negligent in causing the same injury.¹⁵ Generally, each defendant is responsible only for their proportionate share of fault.¹⁶ However, if a defendant’s share exceeds 50%, they may be held jointly and severally liable, meaning they can be responsible for the entire judgment if other defendants cannot pay.¹⁷

For example, if two drivers contribute to a three-car collision and one is found 60% at fault, that driver could be liable for the full damages, even though the other driver bears some responsibility. This ensures that injured parties have a meaningful path to recovery, even if some defendants are unable to satisfy their share.  

Settlement Strategy

Understanding comparative fault and joint liability isn’t just important at trial. Comparative fault plays a major role in settlement discussions.¹⁸ Because Minnesota reduces recovery based on the injured party’s share of fault, both sides often try to estimate or argue over the likely percentage before negotiating a resolution.¹⁹ Plaintiffs can strengthen their position by showing that their share of fault is small, increasing potential recovery.²⁰ Defendants, meanwhile, may highlight the plaintiff’s actions to reduce liability or encourage a settlement that reflects proportional responsibility.²¹ By understanding how fault may be assigned, both sides can make informed decisions about whether to settle or proceed to trial.  

Conclusion  

Minnesota’s modified comparative fault framework embodies the principle that fairness demands nuance. By allowing injured individuals to recover for the portion of harm they did not cause, the law ensures that justice is not lost in technicalities. It stands as a reminder that accountability should reflect reality—not perfection.  

*Nick Downes, J.D. Candidate University of St. Thomas School of Law, Class of 2026 (Senior Editor).

1. State By State Negligence Laws, USClaims (Sep. 13, 2024), https://usclaims.com/news-and-tips/negligence-laws-by-state/ [https://perma.cc/CV4E-AN75]. ↩︎
2. Legal Information Institute, Contributory Negligence, Cornell Law School (last updated July 2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/contributory_negligence [https://perma.cc/3BP6-S4MV]. ↩︎
3. USClaims, supra note 1.  ↩︎
4. Legal Information Institute, Comparative Negligence, Cornell Law School (last updated July 2022), https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence [https://perma.cc/Q87Z-PRSJ]. ↩︎
5. Id. ↩︎
6. Contributory and Comparative Negligence by State, Bloomberg Law Insights (Jan. 3, 2023), https://pro.bloomberglaw.com/insights/litigation/contributory-and-comparative-negligence-by-state/ [https://perma.cc/JQ8W-YRTJ]. ↩︎
7. Legal Information Institute, supra note 4.   ↩︎
8. Id. ↩︎
9. Id.  ↩︎
10. Comparative & Contributory Negligence Laws: 50-State Survey, Justia (Jan. 11, 2024), https://www.justia.com/injury/negligence-theory/comparative-contributory-negligence-laws-50-state-survey/ [https://perma.cc/AST8-MGHP]. ↩︎
11. Minn. Stat. § 604.01 (2024).   ↩︎
12.  Id. ↩︎
13.  Id. ↩︎
14. Minn. Stat. § 604.02 (2024). ↩︎
15. Id. ↩︎
16. Id. ↩︎
17. Id. ↩︎
18.  Jeffrey M. Montpetit, Minnesota’s Comparative Fault Laws, SiebenCarey (July 4, 2024), https://www.knowyourrights.com/blog/minnesotas-comparative-fault-laws/ [https://perma.cc/9UGN-KVAW]. ↩︎
19. Id. ↩︎
20. Id. ↩︎
21. Insurance Claim Recovery Support, Behind the Scenes: How Insurance Companies Handle Settlement Talks, https://insuranceclaimrecoverysupport.com/how-do-insurance-companies-negotiate-settlements/ [https://perma.cc/N6TY-WUWL] (last visited Oct. 19, 2025). ↩︎