Kentucky and the 13 States With Pure Comparative Fault

A genuine minority approach

Among the various ways US states handle a claimant's own fault, pure comparative negligence — where no fault percentage ever completely bars recovery — is a real minority position. Roughly 13 states use it, compared to about 33 states that use some version of modified comparative negligence with a fault-based cutoff.

The 13 pure comparative states

Kentucky's peer group under this approach is: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida (for most claims), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

A genuine regional outlier

Unlike some other fault rules that cluster together regionally, Kentucky's pure comparative approach makes it a real outlier among its immediate neighbors. Most nearby states instead use some form of modified comparative negligence, meaning Kentucky's rule genuinely stands apart from much of the surrounding region rather than reflecting a shared regional pattern.

Shared outcome, separate legal paths

All 13 states share the same core outcome — no fault percentage ever bars recovery entirely — but each reaches this rule through its own statute or body of case law, with its own specific history. Kentucky's version, under KRS § 411.182, developed alongside judicial decisions that moved the state away from its earlier contributory negligence approach.

Why this matters in a high-fault claim

Because none of these 13 states bars recovery regardless of fault percentage, a claimant with genuinely significant fault — 70%, 80%, even 90% — still recovers a meaningful, proportionally reduced amount here, a real practical difference from the far more common modified comparative states where that same fault level would eliminate the claim completely. See our full comparison of how Kentucky's rule fits among all four fault systems for the complete picture.

States with pure comparative fault — frequently asked questions

Which states use pure comparative negligence?

Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida (for most claims), Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

Is pure comparative negligence a common approach among US states?

No, it's a genuinely minority approach — roughly 13 states use it, compared to about 33 states using some version of modified comparative negligence with a fault-based bar.

Do all 13 pure comparative states apply the rule identically?

The core outcome is shared — no fault percentage ever bars recovery entirely — but each state reaches this rule through its own statute or case law, with its own specific wording.

Why does it matter that Kentucky is in this smaller group of states?

Because a claimant with very high fault, even 80% or 90%, still recovers something in these 13 states, unlike in the far more common modified comparative states where that same fault level would eliminate the claim entirely.

Is Kentucky unusual among its Southern and Midwestern neighbors for using this rule?

Yes, genuinely. Most of Kentucky's immediate neighbors use some form of modified comparative negligence instead, making Kentucky's pure comparative approach a real outlier in its own region.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on general US negligence law and Kentucky statute (KRS § 411.182), verified per our methodology. Confirm how these rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed attorney in the relevant state before acting.