832.402.6637Free Consultation
Updated & Reviewed by
C.J. Baker -
October 19, 2026
Maybe the insurance adjuster told you the crash was partly your fault. Or maybe you tripped over something that was partly obscured. Either way, you are asking yourself the same question: Does the fact that it was partially your fault ruin your case?
No, in Texas, it usually does not.
Texas uses a rule called “comparative negligence,” or more precisely, proportionate responsibility. Whatever you would prefer to call it, it lets you recover money even when part of the blame lands on you (at least if it is not more than 50%.)
Here is exactly how that works, and what it means for your claim.
At the end of the day, comparative negligence is just a way of splitting blame.
Instead of one person taking all the fault, a jury or insurance adjuster assigns a percentage to everyone involved (including you). Texas calls this proportionate responsibility. You will find the rule in Chapter 33 of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
Some states use “pure” comparative negligence. Under that version, you can recover money even if you were 99% at fault. Texas does not go that far. Texas caps the rule at 51%, and that is called “modified” comparative negligence. This means:
So the magic number is 51%.
Here’s how it works: Let’s say that a jury decides you were 20% at fault for a car crash, and your damages add up to $100,000. You would walk away with $80,000, that is, $100,000 less 20%. That is Texas comparative negligence at work.
Picture a four-way intersection and let’s say that you didn’t quite fully stop. Let’s also say that the other driver didn’t fully stop either but because he was staring at his phone, he didn’t see you and crashed into your car.
A jury could say that you were at 15% at fault (because of the rolling stop) and the other driver was 85% to blame (due to the rolling stop and distracted driving). In that case, you would still collect 85% of your damages.
But the reverse is also true. If you were the one staring at your phone and it was 85% your fault, you would be the one who gets nothing.
Nobody just declares what each person’s percentage is; someone has to prove it.
In a lawsuit, that someone is the jury and they work from evidence, like:
Since most cases settle through negotiation, part of that includes the insurance adjuster and your attorney arguing over the evidence until they land on a percentage that both sides can live with. (That is also why you need a good personal injury lawyer).
Comparative negligence touches almost every part of a Texas injury claim, from the first settlement offer to the jury’s final verdict.
An insurance company will almost always argue that part of the blame is yours. That is a given. Similarly, your attorney will be fighting to keep your own percentage as low as the facts allow, because every percentage matters.
Here’s why this is a fight that is critical to your case: The difference between 45% and 55% is not just ten points. It is also the difference between collecting a settlement and walking away with nothing. The reason is that once you hit that magic 51% to blame number, you get nothing.
The 51% rule applies in all personal injury cases, no matter the cause. But that said, each kind of case tends to raise its own version of the fault fight.
Car accidents are the most familiar setting for comparative negligence. Insurance adjusters love to try to shift some of the blame onto the injured driver: They were following too closely, they changed lanes without signaling, that sort of thing.
The good news is that dashcam footage and traffic camera video can settle these arguments fast and prove who is really responsible.
If you were hurt on someone else’s property, the property owner’s go-to defense is usually that you were not paying attention. Comparative negligence weighs that argument against the property owner’s own failure: Did they fix the hazard, or at least warn you about it? A jury splits the blame based on the evidence and moves on from there.
Negligent security cases usually start with a crime, not an accident: An assault, a robbery, or worse, occurs in a parking lot or apartment complex with broken gates, dead cameras, or poor lighting.
You might say the lack of lighting, for instance, contributed to what happened to you. The property owner will often try to shift blame onto you for being somewhere “risky” at the wrong time. A strong case shows the danger was likely to happen (the law calls this “foreseeable”) and the property owner did nothing about it.
If both things are true, then comparative negligence would apply and liability would be assigned accordingly.
Work injuries can make these situations a little more complicated. If your employer carries workers’ compensation insurance, comparative negligence can reduce what you recover, the same as any other case. But if your employer does not carry workers’ comp, which Texas allows and calls a “non-subscriber,” the law changes in your favor.
Under Labor Code § 406.033, a non-subscriber cannot use your own carelessness to cut your recovery at all. So if you have a non-subscriber employer, and you are, say, even 25% at fault, you could still recover a full 100%.
That protection has a limit, though: It only applies to your employer. If someone else is also to blame, a subcontractor maybe, or a property owner, or an equipment manufacturer, ordinary comparative negligence still applies to their share.
You can read more about how we handle non-subscriber work injuries here.
When more than one person or company contributed to your injury, a jury assigns a percentage of blame to each of them, not just to you.
Under CPRC § 33.013, any defendant found more than 50% responsible can be on the hook for your entire judgment, not just their own slice of it. So if three companies caused your injury, and one of them was more than 50% responsible, that one company could owe you for the whole thing, not just its share.
That rule exists so you are not left chasing several companies for several partial checks.
Being partly at fault is not the same as fully at fault, and Texas law was built around that difference.
Remember the driver at 20% fault from earlier? He still walked away with $80,000. That is not a loophole. That is the system working exactly as intended.
The only real danger zone is that 51% line. Everything below that still pays. That is exactly why the fight over your exact percentage matters so much, and why it is worth having someone in your corner who knows how to keep that number down.
If someone is already trying to pin part of the blame on you, you do not have to sort out the percentages on your own.
At Armstrong Lee & Baker, we dig up the evidence that keeps fault where it actually belongs. Whether it is a car accident, slip and fall, negligent security case, or a work injury with more than one party involved, we’ve got you covered.
To make things easy, we offer free consultations and if you choose to work with us, you only pay us if we win. Contact us today to learn more.
C.J. Baker represents victims with serious injuries and he won’t let any corporation or insurance company stop his clients from getting complete justice. He has won millions of dollars for victims of 18-wheeler crashes, oilfield equipment failures, offshore platform explosions, and defective medical devices. Our lawyers have 25+ years of combined experience.
This page has been written, edited, and reviewed by a team of lawyers following our comprehensive editorial guidelines. Our lawyers have more than 20 years of legal experience as personal injury attorneys.
If you are seriously injured in a car accident, you will have to deal with your own insurance as well as the other driver’s insurance. Worrying about contact...
Posted by Scott Armstrong
If you have been injured in Texas, you do not have unlimited time to take legal action. The law sets strict deadlines for filing a personal injury lawsuit, typically...
Posted by Scott Armstrong
As a consumer, when you purchase or use a product, you expect that it will function properly and as designed. Unfortunately, however, this is not always the case. And ...
Posted by C.J. Baker
Call
Message