Tennessee's rule: barred at an exact tie
Tennessee follows modified comparative fault, often called the "49 percent rule." A plaintiff can recover, with damages reduced proportionally, only if their own fault is less than the defendant's — not merely equal to or less than it. This is the stricter of the two common modified thresholds: an exact 50-50 split bars recovery entirely in Tennessee, unlike states that allow recovery at an even split.
Worked example
Someone with $100,000 in damages, found 49% at fault, recovers $51,000. That same person, found exactly 50% at fault, recovers nothing at all — the line falls one percentage point earlier than in a 51%-bar state.
A genuinely significant history: created by a court, not a legislature
Tennessee's comparative fault system wasn't created by the state legislature. In McIntyre v. Balentine (1992), the Tennessee Supreme Court itself replaced the harsh, all-or-nothing contributory negligence defense with this modified comparative fault system — one of only 11 states to adopt comparative fault judicially rather than through legislation. The case's own facts were dramatic: both drivers involved in the underlying accident had been drinking, with the plaintiff's blood alcohol level measured at .17 percent.
Several liability, not joint and several
The same McIntyre decision abolished joint and several liability in Tennessee. Each defendant found liable is now generally responsible only for their own proportional share of the fault, not a co-defendant's share as well. See our full guide to how fault is assigned in Tennessee for more on this, including a genuinely distinctive rule about assigning fault to parties who can't actually be sued.