Understanding Massachusetts’ Comparative Negligence Law: What Injury Victims Need to Know

by Sponsored, Sponsored • May 21, 2025

Sponsored

The Basics of Comparative Negligence Everyone Should Know

One legal theory that divides responsibility amongst accident victims is comparative negligence. This method acknowledges that several people may share blame for an occurrence rather than seeing culpability as all-or-nothing. In particular, Massachusetts applies a 51% threshold “modified comparative negligence” criterion.

Under this system, responsibility is distributed based on each party’s contribution to the accident. The law recognizes that accidents are often complex events with multiple contributing factors. This approach allows courts to assign percentage-based responsibility rather than placing blame entirely on one party.

Massachusetts’ Modified Comparative Negligence: The 51% Rule

Massachusetts operates under what’s known as the “51% rule” for comparative negligence. This critical threshold determines whether an injured party can recover damages at all.

According to Massachusetts General Law Chapter 231, Section 85, you can recover damages only if you are found to be 50% or less responsible for the accident. If you’re determined to be 51% or more at fault, you cannot recover any compensation whatsoever.

How Fault Percentages Affect Your Compensation

When you’re found partially at fault but below the 51% threshold, your compensation will be reduced proportionally to your assigned percentage of fault. This reduction applies to all damages you’re seeking to recover.

Here’s how this works in practice:

The court determines your total damages (medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, etc.).
The court assigns fault percentages to all involved parties.
Your award is reduced by your percentage of fault.

For instance, your compensation would be lowered by 20%, for a total recovery of $80,000, if you were judged to be 20% at fault for your $100,000 in losses.

Real-World Examples of Comparative Negligence in Massachusetts Injury Cases

Examine the following typical instances to gain an understanding of how comparative negligence functions in practical settings:

Scenario 1: Intersection Car Accident

A driver runs a red light but hits another vehicle that was speeding through the intersection. The speeding driver suffers injuries and sues the red-light runner. The court might determine:

Red-light runner: 70% at fault (failed to obey traffic signal)
Speeding driver: 30% at fault (excessive speed contributed to the collision)

The injured driver could recover 70% of their damages, with 30% reduced due to their contribution to the accident.

Scenario 2: Slip and Fall in a Grocery Store

A customer slips on a spilled liquid in a grocery store aisle, suffering a broken wrist. The store had posted “wet floor” signs at the entrance, but not in the specific aisle. The court might determine:

Store: 60% at fault (failed to clean spill or place warning signs in the actual location)
Customer: 40% at fault (failed to notice the entrance warning and wasn’t watching where they were walking)

The injured customer could recover 60% of their damages.

Scenario 3: Pedestrian-Vehicle Collision

A pedestrian crosses against the light and is struck by a driver who was texting. The court might determine:

Driver: 60% at fault (distracted driving)
Pedestrian: 40% at fault (crossing improperly)

The pedestrian could recover 60% of their damages.

Proving Negligence in Massachusetts Personal Injury Cases

Before comparative fault even comes into play, the plaintiff must establish four key elements of negligence:

Duty of care: The defendant was required by law to use reasonable caution. This obligation differs depending on the connection and situation: professionals have obligations to clients, property owners to guests, and drivers to other drivers.
Breach of duty: That level of care was not met by the defendant. Traffic infractions, disregard for safety procedures, or departure from industry norms might all be signs of a breach.
Causation: The accident was directly brought on by this failure. Both “actual cause” — the harm would not have happened but for the defendant’s actions — and “proximate cause” — the harm was a predictable consequence—are necessary in Massachusetts courts.
Damages: As a result, the plaintiff experienced real injury. This covers both non-economic (pain and suffering, reduced quality of life) and economic (medical costs, lost earnings) damages.

Only after these elements are established does the court consider how the plaintiff’s own actions might have contributed to the accident. The burden initially falls on the plaintiff to prove these elements, but then shifts to the defendant to establish any comparative negligence claims.

How Insurance Companies Use Comparative Negligence

Insurance companies frequently leverage comparative negligence to reduce their liability. Common tactics include:

Immediately suggesting you share the blame for the accident
Using your statements against you to establish fault
Requesting recorded statements in hopes you’ll admit partial fault
Emphasizing any safety rules you might have violated
Claiming injuries would have been less severe with different actions (seatbelt usage, etc.).

These tactics underscore why speaking with an attorney before engaging with insurance adjusters is so critical after an accident.

Strategies to Address Comparative Negligence Claims

When facing allegations of comparative fault, several strategies can help protect your right to fair compensation:

Gather comprehensive evidence: Photos, videos, witness statements, and expert testimony can all help establish the true fault distribution.
Avoid making statements about fault: Never admit fault or apologize at the accident scene or to insurance representatives.
Document everything: Keep detailed records of all accident-related information.
Focus on the other party’s negligence: Identify all safety rules the defendant violated.
Consult with an experienced attorney: Professional guidance is invaluable in navigating comparative negligence claims.

Why Legal Representation Matters in Comparative Negligence Cases

Comparative negligence adds significant complexity to personal injury cases. An experienced attorney can:

Anticipate and counter allegations of comparative fault
Build a strong case demonstrating the defendant’s greater responsibility
Negotiate effectively with insurance companies attempting to shift blame
Ensure all damages are properly calculated before any reductions
Present compelling evidence to minimize your assigned percentage of fault.

Concluding Remarks

Massachusetts’ comparative negligence law provides a balanced approach to fault allocation in personal injury cases, but it also creates significant challenges for injury victims. Understanding how this law works is essential for anyone involved in an accident in the Commonwealth.

By recognizing how fault percentages impact compensation and taking proactive steps to address potential comparative negligence claims, Massachusetts residents can better protect their right to fair recovery following an injury. When questions about comparative negligence arise in your case, consulting with a knowledgeable personal injury attorney can make all the difference in securing the compensation you deserve. While no amount of money can truly compensate for serious injuries, the law provides this mechanism to help victims recover financially.