A genuinely important gate in front of fault
Utah is a no-fault state for auto insurance. Before a car accident claimant can pursue a fault-based tort claim at all under § 78B-5-818, they generally must first satisfy a separate PIP tort threshold under Utah Code § 31A-22-309. Only once that threshold is crossed does the familiar comparative fault analysis — and the 50% bar — actually come into play.
A genuinely reassuring detail: PIP survives a losing fault case
Here's a real point of comfort worth knowing. Even for a plaintiff found 50% or more at fault and barred from tort recovery entirely under the comparative fault rule, their no-fault PIP benefits generally remain intact. Losing the fault-based claim doesn't mean losing everything — the no-fault benefits exist on a separate track.
The "empty chair" tactic
A common defense strategy in Utah comparative fault cases involves naming an absent or judgment-proof third party as bearing some share of fault — sometimes called the "empty chair" tactic. By shifting part of the overall fault allocation onto someone not actually present to defend themselves, defense counsel can push the remaining percentages around in a way that moves the plaintiff's own share closer to the critical 50% line.
Fault is compared against the combined total
Utah's 50% bar analysis compares the plaintiff's own fault against the combined fault attributed to all defendants together, not against any single defendant in isolation — a detail that matters in any case involving more than one potentially liable party.
Who ultimately decides
If a case goes to trial, the jury assigns a fault percentage to every party found to have contributed to the harm, including, where relevant, an absent third party raised through the empty-chair tactic. In the far more common scenario of a negotiated settlement, the parties and their insurers effectively work out this same comparison between themselves. See our Utah comparative negligence calculator to see how sharply the outcome changes right at the 49/50 line.