New Mexico's rule: reduced, never eliminated
New Mexico has adopted a "pure" comparative negligence rule. Unlike the modified systems many other states use, there's no fault percentage, however high, that bars a claimant from recovering something for ordinary negligence. Damages are simply reduced in proportion to the claimant's own share of fault.
Worked example
Someone with $100,000 in damages, found 20% at fault, recovers $80,000. That same person, found 70% at fault instead, still recovers $30,000. Found 90% at fault — a level that would eliminate recovery entirely in most other states — that same person still recovers $10,000 in New Mexico.
A rule built mainly by the courts, not the legislature
New Mexico's pure comparative negligence rule developed primarily through case law, most notably the New Mexico Supreme Court's decision in Scott v. Rizzo, rather than through a single comprehensive statute enacted by the legislature — a genuinely different legal origin story than states where a comparative negligence act was passed outright.
No general damage cap for ordinary claims
New Mexico generally does not cap damages in an ordinary personal injury case against a private individual or business. Specific caps can still apply in narrower contexts, such as claims against the government or certain medical malpractice cases, which follow their own distinct rules.