Mississippi and the Dozen Pure Comparative Negligence States

The minority approach, nationally

Among the US states, pure comparative negligence — where no fault percentage, however high, bars a claimant's recovery — is genuinely the less common approach. More than 30 states use some form of modified comparative negligence with a fixed fault-percentage cutoff instead, typically at 50% or 51%.

The dozen or so states using pure comparative negligence

Mississippi's peer group under this more claimant-friendly approach includes: Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida (for medical malpractice specifically), Kentucky, Louisiana (for accidents before 2026), Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

A genuinely long-standing member of this group

Mississippi's version of this rule, Miss. Code § 11-7-15, traces back to a broad comparative negligence statute passed in 1910 — making Mississippi one of the earliest adopters nationally and giving its pure comparative rule a genuinely longer pedigree than many of its current peer states.

Shared core, distinctive details

All of these states share the same fundamental outcome — no fault percentage eliminates recovery — but each codifies this under its own statute, often with its own distinctive wrinkles layered on top. Mississippi's version comes paired with a notable protective carve-out: a claimant's failure to wear a seat belt cannot be used as evidence of contributory or comparative negligence at all, a detail not every peer state shares in the same form.

Why this matters in a disputed claim

Because none of these roughly dozen states ever eliminates recovery entirely based on fault, a disputed fault percentage — even one that looks genuinely unfavorable to the claimant — still results in some recovery across this entire group. See our full comparison of how Mississippi's rule fits among all three fault systems for the complete national picture.

States with pure comparative negligence — frequently asked questions

Which states use pure comparative negligence like Mississippi?

Roughly a dozen states, including Mississippi, Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana (for accidents before 2026), Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.

Is pure comparative negligence the majority or minority approach nationally?

A genuine minority. More than 30 states use some form of modified comparative negligence with a fault-percentage cutoff, while only about a dozen use Mississippi's pure version.

Do all pure comparative negligence states apply the rule identically?

The core outcome is shared — no fault percentage bars recovery — but each state codifies it under its own statute, sometimes with its own distinctive wrinkles, like Mississippi's seat belt protection.

Is Mississippi's version of pure comparative negligence especially old?

Yes. Mississippi passed its broad comparative negligence statute in 1910, making it genuinely one of the longest-standing laws of this kind among its peer states.

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

Because a claimant found mostly at fault — even 90% or more — still recovers something in these states, unlike in the far more common modified comparative states where crossing a 50% or 51% line eliminates recovery entirely.

This page provides general guidance only and is not legal advice. Figures are based on general US negligence law and Mississippi statute (Miss. Code § 11-7-15), verified per our methodology. Confirm how these rules apply to a specific claim with a licensed attorney in the relevant state before acting.