Alaska: Pure vs. Modified Comparative Negligence

Alaska's courts decided how fault should work years before the legislature got around to writing it down — and the answer they landed on is the most forgiving version on the books.

Four systems, and Alaska sits at one extreme

American fault law splits into four real categories: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar, modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and pure contributory negligence. Alaska sits at the most forgiving end of that spectrum — pure comparative negligence — while a small handful of states, including Alabama, sit at the opposite, strictest end.

Pure comparative negligence: Alaska's rule

Under AS §§ 09.17.060 and 09.17.080, an injured person's own fault reduces their recovery by their exact percentage of fault, with absolutely no cutoff point. A claimant found 80% at fault still recovers the remaining 20% of their damages. There's no threshold anywhere in the system where the claimant's own fault suddenly eliminates the claim entirely — it simply keeps shrinking the recovery as the fault percentage climbs, all the way up to 99%.

Modified comparative negligence: a threshold Alaska doesn't have

Most US states instead use a modified version: recovery is allowed, reduced by the claimant's fault percentage, but only up to a point. Once the claimant's fault reaches 50% (in some states) or 51% (in others), recovery is barred completely. Alaska has no equivalent threshold built into its rule at all — the proportional reduction simply continues regardless of how high the claimant's own share of fault climbs.

Contributory negligence: the opposite extreme

At the far other end sit the five contributory negligence jurisdictions — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and the District of Columbia — where any fault at all on the claimant's part, even 1%, can bar recovery completely. Alaska's rule produces the exact opposite outcome in the same scenario: a claimant 1% at fault in Alaska still recovers 99% of their damages, while the same claimant would recover nothing at all in one of those five jurisdictions.

A rule the courts wrote before the legislature did

Alaska's path to pure comparative negligence has a genuinely distinctive history. The Alaska Supreme Court established the pure comparative fault standard directly, through its decision in Kaatz v. State, 540 P.2d 1037 (Alaska 1975) — roughly a decade before the state legislature formally adopted the Uniform Comparative Fault Act and wrote essentially the same rule into statute. See our guide to the other states using pure comparative negligence for where Alaska's approach fits among its peers nationally.

Pure vs. modified comparative negligence — frequently asked questions

What are the four fault systems used across US states?

Pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar, modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and pure contributory negligence. Alaska uses pure comparative negligence, the most forgiving of the four toward an at-fault claimant.

How does Alaska's rule differ from modified comparative negligence states?

Modified comparative negligence states bar recovery once a claimant's fault reaches a 50% or 51% threshold. Alaska has no such threshold — recovery is reduced proportionally no matter how high the claimant's fault percentage is, even at 99%.

How does Alaska's rule differ from contributory negligence states?

Contributory negligence states, like Alabama, bar recovery entirely if the claimant has any fault at all, even 1%. Alaska never bars recovery for fault alone; it only reduces the amount proportionally.

Did Alaska adopt pure comparative negligence by statute or by court decision?

By court decision first. The Alaska Supreme Court established pure comparative fault in Kaatz v. State (1975), roughly a decade before the legislature codified the same rule through the Uniform Comparative Fault Act.

Is Alaska's comparative negligence rule common among US states?

It's a real but minority approach. Roughly a dozen states use pure comparative negligence; most others use some form of modified comparative negligence with a fault threshold instead.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on Alaska statute (AS § 09.17.060, § 09.17.080) and published case law, verified per our methodology. Confirm how these rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed Alaska attorney before acting.