Four systems, and Massachusetts uses the more common middle version
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. Massachusetts uses the 51% bar — the more typical of the two modified thresholds nationally.
Massachusetts's rule: barred only when you exceed them
Under M.G.L. c. 231, § 85, a claimant recovers as long as their fault was not greater than the combined fault of the defendants. A claimant at exactly 50% still recovers half their damages; only crossing to 51% bars recovery entirely.
A real, documented improvement over the old rule
Massachusetts didn't always work this way. Before 1969, the state applied pure contributory negligence — any fault at all on the claimant's part, however small, completely barred recovery. Section 85 replaced that older rule with the modified comparative system used today, a genuine liberalization that brought Massachusetts in line with the broader national shift away from all-or-nothing contributory negligence.
The stricter alternative: a 50% bar
A smaller group of about 12 states, including Georgia and Kansas, use a stricter version: recovery is barred the moment the claimant's fault is equal to the defendant's, not only when it exceeds it. A claimant at exactly 50% recovers nothing in those states, while the same claimant recovers a meaningful amount in Massachusetts.
Pure comparative negligence and contributory negligence: the two extremes
At the more forgiving end of the spectrum, pure comparative negligence states like California never bar recovery for ordinary fault at all. At the far stricter end, the five contributory negligence jurisdictions — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC — still bar recovery entirely for any fault, even 1%, the exact rule Massachusetts itself left behind in 1969. See our guide to the other states using a 51% bar for Massachusetts's closest peer group nationally.