Comparative Negligence in District of Columbia
State-specific overview · Tort Law
DC uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is 99% at fault.
How District of Columbia treats Comparative Negligence
District of Columbia applies pure comparative negligence, meaning a plaintiff can recover damages even if they bear the majority of fault, as long as the defendant bears some responsibility. The plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault. DC courts have consistently upheld this rule, which is codified in common law rather than statute. This approach differs from many states that bar recovery if the plaintiff exceeds a certain threshold of fault (typically 50%).
The general definition of Comparative Negligence
A rule that reduces damages based on the victim's own percentage of fault.
Comparative negligence is a legal principle that recognizes both parties in an accident may share responsibility. Instead of an all-or-nothing approach, the court or jury determines what percentage each person is at fault. Your damages award is then reduced by your percentage of fault. For example, if you're 20% at fault and awarded $100,000, you receive $80,000. Some states use 'pure' comparative negligence (you can recover even if you're 99% at fault), while others use 'modified' comparative negligence (you can only recover if you're less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state).
Read the full Comparative Negligence entry →This page is a plain-English reference and is not legal advice. State laws change frequently. For specific situations consult a licensed attorney in District of Columbia.