Montana's rule: measured against the combined negligence of everyone sued
Under MCA § 27-1-702, contributory negligence does not bar recovery "if the contributory negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person or the combined negligence of all persons against whom recovery is sought." Damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's own degree of negligence — but only once that negligence actually exceeds 50% of the combined total does recovery get barred entirely.
Combined, not defendant-by-defendant
A genuinely important detail: when there are multiple defendants, Montana's statute compares the claimant's negligence to the combined negligence of everyone being sued, not to any single defendant in isolation. This matters in multi-party cases, where a claimant's fault percentage could be below any one individual defendant's share while still needing to stay under the combined total of all defendants together.
The 50/51 distinction, precisely
A claimant found exactly 50% negligent still recovers half of their damages under Montana's rule, because their negligence was not greater than the combined negligence of those they're suing. A claimant found 51% negligent recovers nothing at all. This is what makes Montana a genuine "51% rule" state, more forgiving than the smaller group of states that bar recovery at fault merely equal to the defendants'.
Worked example
Someone with $100,000 in damages, found 20% negligent, recovers $80,000. That same person, found 50% negligent instead, still recovers $50,000. Found at 51%, that same person recovers nothing at all.
Several liability for most tort cases
Montana generally follows a system of several liability under § 27-1-703 for most tort cases, meaning each defendant is typically responsible only for their own individually-assigned share of fault, rather than being on the hook for the full judgment regardless of their specific percentage.
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 Montana for what that negotiation actually looks like.