The less common comparative approach
Among US states using some form of comparative negligence, a smaller group of roughly a dozen states uses the pure version — letting a claimant recover a reduced amount regardless of how high their own fault runs. A larger number of states instead use some form of modified comparative negligence, with a 50% or 51% bar.
The dozen pure comparative states
Washington's peer group under this rule generally includes: California, Washington, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Alaska, Arizona, Florida, and New York.
A genuinely different rule right next door
Here's a notable regional contrast. Washington's neighbor Oregon doesn't share this rule — Oregon uses modified comparative negligence with a 51% bar instead. Two adjoining Pacific Northwest states, often compared for similar accident scenarios, apply genuinely different fault systems to the same basic facts.
The shared bar doesn't mean shared liability rules
Being part of this pure comparative group means these states share the same approach to the plaintiff's own recovery bar — but it doesn't mean they share identical rules for how liability gets divided among multiple defendants. That part, including how joint and several liability works, genuinely varies from state to state within this group.
Why this group matters in a disputed claim
Because none of these states bars recovery outright based on the claimant's own fault, a high but disputed fault percentage still carries real, if reduced, value across this group — a meaningfully different outcome than the same percentage would produce in a modified comparative or contributory negligence state. See our full comparison of how Washington's rule fits among all four fault systems for the complete picture.