The more common modified comparative threshold
Among the US states that use some form of modified comparative negligence, a majority use the more forgiving 51% threshold — recovery is barred only once the claimant's fault actually exceeds the defendant's. A smaller group of 12 states uses a stricter 50% version instead, where recovery is barred at fault merely equal to the other side's.
The 21 states using a 51% bar
Ohio's peer group under this more common threshold is: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana (for accidents from 2026 onward), Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
A shared threshold with a close neighbor
Ohio's neighbor Michigan also uses the 51% bar, making this a shared rule across that state line — though Michigan's own version carries a distinctive wrinkle, limiting the 51% bar specifically to non-economic damages while handling economic damages differently.
A genuinely distinctive application within this shared group
Here's the detail that sets Ohio apart from most of this list. Under ORC § 2315.33, Ohio explicitly compares the plaintiff's fault against the combined tortious conduct of all other persons — including people the plaintiff isn't even suing in that particular action. Most of the other 20 states in this group don't spell out this non-party inclusion as explicitly in their own statutory text.
Why this matters in a disputed claim
Because none of these 21 states bars recovery at an even 50/50 split, a disputed fault percentage near the midpoint still results in meaningful recovery across the group — and in Ohio specifically, the broader non-party comparison means the full universe of potentially at-fault parties, not just the named defendants, can shape where that percentage ultimately lands. See our full comparison of how Ohio's rule fits among all four fault systems for the complete picture.