Four systems, and Washington 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. Washington uses pure comparative negligence under RCW 4.22.005 — the most forgiving of the four toward an at-fault claimant.
The key structural difference from modified comparative states
A modified comparative state — whether using a 50% or 51% threshold — bars recovery entirely once the claimant's fault crosses that line. Washington has no such threshold at all. Recovery is reduced in proportion to fault, but never eliminated outright based on the fault percentage alone, however high it runs.
The opposite extreme from a contributory negligence state
At the strictest end of the spectrum, a pure contributory negligence jurisdiction like Virginia can bar recovery entirely for even a small percentage of plaintiff fault. Washington sits at the complete opposite extreme — fault alone, no matter how large, never ends the claim outright.
A genuinely minority approach nationally
Pure comparative negligence is actually the less common of the comparative approaches — only around a dozen states use it, compared to the larger number of states using some version of modified comparative negligence. See our guide to the other pure comparative states for Washington's distinctive peer group.
A legislative choice, not a court-made rule
Washington's pure comparative framework comes from the state legislature, codified in RCW 4.22.005, which replaced the state's earlier strict contributory negligence rule — a deliberate statutory shift rather than a court-developed doctrine.