Negligence
In one sentence
Failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm to another person.
Plain English
Negligence is a legal concept in civil law (not criminal) that holds people responsible for careless behavior. To prove negligence, you must show four things: the defendant had a duty to be careful, they breached that duty, their breach caused your injury, and you suffered actual damages. Negligence doesn't require intent to harm—it's about failing to act as a reasonably careful person would in similar circumstances. Victims of negligence can sue for compensation to cover medical bills, lost wages, and pain and suffering.
Example
A store manager failed to clean up a spill on the floor, and a customer slipped and broke her leg. The customer sued for negligence because the manager had a duty to maintain safe conditions, breached it by ignoring the spill, and the customer was injured as a result.
Used in a sentence
“The jury found the driver negligent for texting while driving and awarded the injured cyclist $50,000 in damages.”
How Negligence differs by state
Negligence can apply differently depending on the state. Click a state to see local specifics.
Alabama
Alabama follows traditional negligence rules with a modified comparative fault system that bars recovery if plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
Alaska
Alaska uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is 99% at fault, with damages reduced by plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Arizona
Arizona applies comparative negligence with a 50% bar rule, preventing recovery if plaintiff's negligence equals or exceeds defendant's negligence.
Arkansas
Arkansas follows comparative negligence with a 50% bar, allowing recovery only if plaintiff's negligence is less than the defendant's negligence.
California
California uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is mostly at fault, with damages reduced by plaintiff's percentage of responsibility.
Colorado
Colorado applies comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if you are partially at fault, reduced by your percentage of blame.
Connecticut
Connecticut uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if you are 99% at fault, with damages reduced accordingly.
Delaware
Delaware applies modified comparative negligence, barring recovery if you are 50% or more at fault for the injury.
Florida
Florida uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if you are mostly at fault, with damages reduced by your percentage.
Georgia
Georgia applies modified comparative negligence, barring recovery if your negligence is greater than or equal to the defendant's negligence.
Hawaii
Hawaii applies traditional negligence law with a comparative fault rule that bars recovery if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
Idaho
Idaho applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff is primarily at fault, reduced by their percentage of fault.
Illinois
Illinois applies modified comparative negligence, barring recovery if the plaintiff's negligence is equal to or greater than the defendant's negligence.
Indiana
Indiana applies modified comparative negligence, preventing recovery if the plaintiff's negligence is equal to or exceeds the defendant's negligence.
Iowa
Iowa applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery regardless of the plaintiff's degree of fault, reduced by their percentage of negligence.
Kansas
Kansas applies traditional negligence law with a comparative fault rule that bars recovery if plaintiff is equally or more at fault.
Kentucky
Kentucky uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is 99% at fault, but damages reduce proportionally.
Louisiana
Louisiana uses a civil law system based on fault principles, requiring proof that defendant's conduct caused injury through breach of legal duty.
Maine
Maine applies pure comparative negligence, permitting recovery proportional to defendant's fault regardless of plaintiff's negligence percentage.
Maryland
Maryland applies a modified comparative negligence rule that bars recovery if plaintiff's negligence equals or exceeds the defendant's negligence.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts follows traditional negligence rules with a modified comparative fault system that bars recovery if plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Michigan
Michigan applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is 99% at fault, but damages reduce by plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Minnesota
Minnesota applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery proportional to defendant's fault regardless of plaintiff's negligence percentage.
Mississippi
Mississippi applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is primarily at fault, with proportional damage reduction.
Missouri
Missouri applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if plaintiff is mostly at fault, with damages reduced proportionally.
Montana
Montana follows traditional negligence rules with a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
Nebraska
Nebraska uses comparative negligence but bars recovery if the plaintiff is equally or more at fault than the defendant.
Nevada
Nevada applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire follows comparative negligence with a three-year statute of limitations and allows recovery even if plaintiff is mostly at fault.
New Jersey
New Jersey applies comparative negligence and recognizes a "reasonable person" standard tailored to the defendant's actual knowledge and abilities.
New Mexico
New Mexico follows traditional negligence rules with a comparative fault system that bars recovery only if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
New York
New York uses pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if a plaintiff is 99% at fault, with damages reduced proportionally.
North Carolina
North Carolina applies contributory negligence, completely barring recovery if the plaintiff bears any fault whatsoever, even 1%.
North Dakota
North Dakota follows comparative negligence, barring recovery only if the plaintiff's negligence is greater than or equal to the defendant's.
Ohio
Ohio uses comparative negligence, allowing recovery if the plaintiff is not more than 50% at fault, with damages reduced by their percentage of fault.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma follows comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if you're partially at fault, reduced by your percentage of blame.
Oregon
Oregon uses comparative negligence and bars recovery only if the plaintiff is more than 50% responsible for their own injury.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania applies comparative negligence but bars recovery if the plaintiff is as much or more negligent than the defendant.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery regardless of how much the plaintiff contributed to their own injury.
South Carolina
South Carolina uses modified comparative negligence, barring recovery if the plaintiff's negligence equals or exceeds the defendant's negligence.
South Dakota
South Dakota follows traditional negligence rules with a three-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims.
Tennessee
Tennessee uses modified comparative negligence, barring recovery if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault.
Texas
Texas applies proportionate responsibility, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault, as long as one defendant is more responsible.
Utah
Utah follows comparative negligence, reducing damages by the plaintiff's percentage of fault without a bar to recovery.
Vermont
Vermont applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery regardless of the plaintiff's degree of fault.
Virginia
Virginia follows traditional negligence rules with a strict comparative negligence bar: plaintiffs cannot recover if they are 50% or more at fault.
Washington
Washington applies pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff is 99% at fault, reduced by their percentage of fault.
West Virginia
West Virginia applies modified comparative negligence: plaintiffs recover only if their negligence is less than the defendant's (under 50%).
Wisconsin
Wisconsin applies pure comparative negligence, permitting recovery proportional to defendant's fault even if plaintiff is mostly at fault.
Wyoming
Wyoming applies modified comparative negligence: plaintiffs cannot recover if their negligence is as great as or greater than the defendant's.
District of Columbia
DC applies traditional negligence law with a modified comparative fault rule that bars recovery if plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Related terms
Comparative Negligence
A rule that reduces damages based on the victim's own percentage of fault.
Punitive Damages
Extra money awarded to punish wrongful conduct and deter future misconduct.
Restitution Damages
Compensation that returns to you the value of a benefit the other party received from you.
battery
Intentional physical contact with another person without consent.
Defamation
A false statement that damages someone's reputation and causes real harm.
Warranty
A promise that something is true or will work as described.
Dram Shop Liability
Legal responsibility of bars or stores for harm caused by serving alcohol to intoxicated people.
Contributory Negligence
A plaintiff's own carelessness that partially caused their injury, reducing their recovery.
This page is a plain-English reference and is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. For specific situations consult a licensed attorney.