Four systems, and Rhode Island uses the most forgiving one
American fault law splits into four real categories: pure comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence with a 50% bar, modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar, and pure contributory negligence. Rhode Island uses pure comparative negligence under R.I.G.L. § 9-20-4, one of around a dozen states nationally to do so.
A genuine contrast right next door
Rhode Island's neighbor Massachusetts follows a modified comparative negligence rule with a 51% bar — recovery is cut off entirely once a plaintiff's fault exceeds 50%. Cross that state line, and the exact same fact pattern can produce a dramatically different outcome: a claimant found 60% at fault recovers something in Rhode Island but nothing at all in Massachusetts.
No threshold at all, short of total fault
Rhode Island's pure rule means a claimant found 99% at fault still recovers 1% of their damages. The only way to be fully barred from recovery is a finding of 100% fault — a genuinely rare outcome in practice, since most comparative-fault disputes involve shared responsibility rather than one party bearing the entirety of it.
The stricter alternatives, for context
A larger group of states uses some version of modified comparative negligence, cutting off recovery at either a 50% or 51% fault threshold. At the far stricter end, the five contributory negligence jurisdictions — Alabama, Maryland, North Carolina, Virginia, and DC — bar recovery entirely for any fault, even 1%. See our guide to the other states using pure comparative negligence for Rhode Island's closest peer group nationally.