Last Updated on January 15, 2026 by Staff Attorney

Nevada’s Modified Comparative Negligence Rule

Nevada law states that, when in a car accident, if more than one party contributes to the crash, the apportionment of fault may be distributed. What this means is that the court compares your negligence against the other drivers involved, and each driver is assigned a percentage of liability for the accident.

Understanding Nevada’s Modified Comparative Negligence Rule

Nevada law follows a modified comparative negligence system, which means fault can be shared between multiple parties in a car accident. This approach differs from two other common negligence doctrines used across the United States:

1. Contributory Negligence (Older Rule)
In strict contributory negligence jurisdictions, if a plaintiff is found to be even 1% at fault for their own injuries, they cannot recover any damages. This “all-or-nothing” approach heavily penalizes victims. Only a handful of states still use this rule.

2. Pure Comparative Negligence
States using pure comparative negligence allow plaintiffs to recover damages even if they are 99% at fault—they simply recover a proportional amount. For example, if you are 80% at fault and awarded $100,000 in damages, you receive $20,000 (100% – 80% = 20%). This approach maximizes victim recovery but can seem unfair to defendants.

3. Modified Comparative Negligence (Nevada’s Approach)
Nevada’s modified comparative negligence rule, codified in NRS 41.141, strikes a middle ground. Under this system, you can recover compensation as long as you are not more than 50% at fault for the accident. If your negligence exceeds 50%, you lose the right to recover entirely. Your final award is then reduced by your percentage of fault.

Nevada law states that, when in a car accident, if more than one party contributes to the crash, the apportionment of fault may be distributed. What this means is that the court compares your negligence against the other drivers involved, and each driver is assigned a percentage of liability for the accident.

How the 50% Threshold Works in Practice

Under NRS 41.141, the 50% bar creates a sharp distinction in recovery eligibility:

  • If you are 50% or less at fault: You can recover damages, reduced by your percentage of fault.

  • If you are more than 50% at fault: You cannot recover any damages, regardless of how much the other driver contributed.

Your Fault % Other Driver’s Fault % Your Award (Before Reduction) Your Recovery (After Reduction) Eligible?
10% 90% $100,000 $90,000 (100% – 10%) ✅ Yes
40% 60% $100,000 $60,000 (100% – 40%) ✅ Yes
50% 50% $100,000 $50,000 (100% – 50%) ✅ Yes
51% 49% $100,000 $0 ❌ No

As you can see, the difference between 50% and 51% is critical: at 50% you recover half your damages, but at 51% you recover nothing.

For instance, if driver A is found 30 percent at fault and driver B is found 70 percent responsible, driver B would be responsible for 70 percent of driver A’s damages in the crash.

If you are found to be less than 50 percent responsible, you may still recover for your damages. If you are found to be more than 50 percent responsible, you are not entitled to any type of recoverable damages under NRS 41.1, the Nevada Comparative Negligence statute. Your final compensation will be reduced by the percentage of fault.

Why Nevada Chose the 50% Bar

Nevada’s modified comparative negligence rule reflects a balance between two competing policy goals:

  1. Fairness to plaintiffs: A plaintiff who is only slightly at fault (e.g., 30%) should not lose the ability to recover for legitimate injuries caused primarily by another’s negligence.

  2. Protection for defendants: A defendant should not be liable to a plaintiff who bears greater responsibility for the accident than the defendant does. By setting the bar at 50%, Nevada ensures that defendants are only liable to plaintiffs who are in the minority of fault.

This “modified” approach avoids the harshness of contributory negligence (where any fault bars recovery) while maintaining clearer boundaries than pure comparative negligence systems.

Impact on Settlement and Trial Strategy:

Because of the 50% threshold, fault determination becomes a critical battleground in Nevada accident litigation. A plaintiff at 49% fault can recover half their damages; at 51%, they recover nothing. This binary outcome makes:

  • Insurance adjustment negotiations high-stakes (adjusters will argue to push plaintiff’s fault over 50%).

  • Expert testimony about accident causation and driver conduct essential.

  • Settlement leverage heavily dependent on the perceived strength of the fault argument.

Concerned About Your Specific Accident?

If you’ve been injured in a Nevada car accident and are unsure about your percentage of fault, the statute alone won’t tell you whether you are above or below the 50% threshold in your case. That determination depends on:

  • Police report findings

  • Witness statements

  • Vehicle damage evidence

  • Expert analysis of driver conduct

  • Insurance company claims data

Contact Brian Boyer Injury & Car Accident Lawyer for a free case evaluation. We’ll assess your accident facts against NRS 41.141 and advise whether you’re likely to be found within the recoverable range. Call (702) 514-1414 24/7.

For detailed guidance on how comparative negligence affects settlement and litigation strategy, see What if I was partially to blame for a car accident?