The most forgiving comparative negligence rule
Pure comparative negligence is the most claimant-friendly of the four fault systems used across the US. A claimant's own fault never bars recovery entirely, no matter how high that percentage climbs — damages are simply reduced in proportion to the claimant's own share.
New York's peer group
States that use pure comparative negligence, at least for the bulk of personal injury claims, include: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.
New York's genuinely new asterisk
As of May 2026, New York's membership in this group comes with a real qualifier. Under the new CPLR § 1411(b), motor vehicle accident claims subject to the No-Fault law were carved out of the pure comparative system entirely and moved to a modified 51% bar instead. New York's 1975-era pure comparative rule, one of the longer-standing in the country, remains fully intact for every other type of personal injury claim.
A targeted reform, not a wholesale shift
New York's change is scoped specifically to motor vehicle accidents rather than a full repeal of its pure comparative framework, so it reads as a targeted carve-out rather than evidence of a broader nationwide move away from pure comparative negligence. The other states in this list have not made comparable changes.
What this means in practice
For a New York claimant in a slip-and-fall, premises liability, or medical malpractice case, the pure comparative rule still applies exactly as it has for decades — fault reduces the recovery but never eliminates it. For a New York claimant in a car accident, the calculus is now genuinely different. See our full comparison of New York's pure and modified systems for how this split plays out.