Minnesota's rule: barred only when you exceed the defendant
Under Minn. Stat. § 604.01, "contributory fault does not bar recovery... if the contributory fault was not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought." Damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's own degree of fault — but only once that fault actually exceeds 50%, reaching 51%, does recovery get barred entirely.
The 50/51 distinction, precisely
A claimant found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half of their damages under Minnesota's rule, because the defendant's fault was not less than the claimant's — the statute only bars recovery when the claimant's fault is "greater than" the defendant's. A claimant found 51% at fault recovers nothing at all. This is what makes Minnesota a genuine "51% rule" state, more forgiving than the smaller group of states that bar recovery at fault merely equal to the defendant's.
Worked example
Someone with $100,000 in damages, found 20% at fault, recovers $80,000. That same person, found 50% at fault instead, still recovers $50,000 — half their damages, since 50% is not greater than the defendant's remaining 50%. Found at 51%, that same person recovers nothing at all.
A genuinely explicit statutory choice: last clear chance, abolished
Minnesota's comparative fault statute goes a step further than many states by explicitly stating that the common-law doctrine of last clear chance — which could once allow a negligent claimant to recover anyway if the defendant had a later opportunity to avoid the harm — is abolished. That older doctrine has been folded entirely into the modern comparative fault analysis instead.
The right to a special verdict
Under § 604.01, either party has the right to request that the jury return separate special verdicts determining both the total amount of damages and the specific percentage of fault attributable to each party, rather than a single combined verdict.
Why the fight over fault stays intense near the 50/51 line
Because the practical difference between a 50/50 finding and a 51/49 finding is the difference between a substantial recovery and zero, insurers have a real, concentrated incentive to argue a claimant's fault upward toward that exact threshold. See our guide to how adjusters build a fault argument in Minnesota for what that negotiation actually looks like.