Nevada's rule: barred only when you exceed the combined fault
Under NRS 41.141, "the comparative negligence of the plaintiff or the plaintiff's decedent does not bar a recovery if that negligence was not greater than the negligence or gross negligence of the parties to the action 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% of the combined total does recovery get barred entirely.
Combined, not defendant-by-defendant
A genuinely important detail: when there are multiple defendants, Nevada's statute compares the claimant's negligence to the combined negligence of everyone being sued, not to any single defendant in isolation. A claimant who is 30% at fault, facing two defendants at 40% and 30% respectively, is compared against their 70% combined total — comfortably below it, so recovery proceeds.
The 50/51 distinction, precisely
A claimant found exactly 50% at fault still recovers half of their damages under Nevada's rule, because their fault was not greater than the combined fault of those they're suing. A claimant found 51% at fault recovers nothing at all. This is what makes Nevada 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% at fault, recovers $80,000. That same person, found 50% at fault instead, still recovers $50,000 — half their damages. Found at 51%, that same person recovers nothing at all.
A distinctive wrinkle: seat belt non-use
Nevada law allows a defendant to introduce evidence that a claimant wasn't wearing a seat belt, but genuinely only to reduce the damages recovered — not as part of the comparative negligence percentage that determines whether the 51% bar applies in the first place. These are two separate legal mechanisms, not one combined calculation.
Each defendant pays their own share
Under NRS 41.141, each defendant is generally only responsible for the portion of damages that matches their own specific fault percentage, rather than potentially being on the hook for the full judgment regardless of their individual share, subject to specific exceptions the statute sets out.