A genuinely smaller group nationally
Pure comparative negligence — where a plaintiff's own fault reduces but never bars recovery — is used by a smaller group of states than the modified comparative systems that together cover most of the country. Rhode Island is part of this smaller group.
The dozen pure comparative states
Rhode Island's peer group under this rule is: Alaska, Arizona, California, Kentucky, Louisiana (for accidents before 2026), Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Washington.
A genuine contrast right next door
Rhode Island's neighbor Massachusetts does not share this rule. Massachusetts uses modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, meaning a claimant found more than 50% at fault recovers nothing there — while that same claimant would still recover something in Rhode Island, just across the state line.
A genuinely distinctive application within this shared group
Here's where Rhode Island stands apart from much of this list. It retains pure joint and several liability alongside its pure comparative rule, meaning a plaintiff can generally recover a full judgment from any one liable defendant. Several other states in this pure comparative group have modified or abolished joint and several liability over time, making Rhode Island's combination of both pure rules together a genuinely rare and plaintiff-friendly feature even within this smaller group.
Why this matters in a disputed claim
Because none of these twelve states bars recovery for ordinary fault, a disputed fault percentage — even a high one — still results in some recovery across the group. In Rhode Island specifically, how that recovery actually gets collected from multiple defendants benefits from the state's pure joint and several liability framework. See our full comparison of how Rhode Island's rule fits among all four fault systems for the complete picture.