Car Accidents

Michigan Modified Comparative Fault: The "51% Rule" Explained

January 20, 2026

Back to blog

Michigan Modified Comparative Fault: The "51% Rule" Explained

Meet The Lee Steinberg Law Firm

GET A FREE CASE CONSULTATION

Michigan is a modified comparative-fault state. Comparative fault refers to comparative negligence.

This means that if a person is 51% at fault for causing a car accident, they are not entitled to recover non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering.

After a car accident, the police report is one way to analyze fault, but it is not the only way. It is important to contact an experienced Michigan personal injury lawyer who can help investigate the accident to determine responsibility. Call the Lee Steinberg Law Firm at 1-800-LEE-FREE (1-800-533-3733) before speaking to any insurance company.

QUICK SUMMARY: THE 51% RULE IN MICHIGAN The Rule: You can sue for pain and suffering as long as you are 50% or less at fault. The Penalty: If you are 51% or more at fault, you get $0 for non-economic damages. Reduced Damages: If you are partially at fault (e.g., 20%), your settlement money is reduced by that percentage. The Law: This is defined under Michigan statute MCL 600.2959.

How Is Comparative Fault Determined?

Comparative fault is determined by a judge, jury, or fact-finder analyzing admissible evidence. The fact finder then apportions fault to the plaintiff and the defendants for causing the plaintiff’s injury.

What If A Driver is Less Than 50% At-Fault For Causing a Michigan Car Accident?

If a driver is less than 50% at fault for causing a car accident, then they can obtain compensation for pain and suffering.

However, the amount of compensation is reduced by the allocation of fault apportioned to the individual parties.

Example: If a jury determines the plaintiff was 20% at fault for causing her own injuries and awards $100,000 in damages, the plaintiff would recover $80,000

Where Does the Modified Comparative Fault Rule Come From?

For decades, Michigan followed the domination common law at the time and was a contributory negligence state. This meant that if a plaintiff was even 1% at-fault, they were not eligible for any pain and suffering or non-economic damages.

Realizing that this rule heavily favored bad actors in civil cases, most states adopted a comparative negligence rule. The Michigan Supreme Court adopted the comparative fault rule in Placek v. Sterling Heights, 405 Mich. 638 (1979).

In 1996, the Michigan legislature codified the comparative fault rule by enacting MCL 600.2959. The comparative fault applies to all personal injury cases, including wrongful death and property damage cases.

What is the Difference Between Pure Comparative Fault and Modified Comparative Fault?

In pure comparative fault, a person can recover for pain and suffering even if they are more than 51% at fault for causing their injury. Their recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to them.

Example: A person is 75% at fault for causing the car accident, and the total damages are $100,000. That person would receive $25,000.

There are only a handful of pure comparative fault states. Michigan has never adopted pure comparative fault. We use the "Modified" rule (the 51% bar).

What are Non-Economic Damages?

Non-economic damages include things like pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, anxiety, depression from the personal injury, as well as future pain and suffering.

Other types of non-economic damages are:

Loss of enjoyment of life: Inability to participate in hobbies, sports, travel, or daily activities.
Disfigurement: Scarring, burns, amputations, visible injuries.
Loss of mobility: Dexterity, vision, or hearing.
Loss of society or companionship.

What are the Different Ways to Determine Negligence?

Proving negligence is key in personal injury cases. Clear evidence shows that someone failed to act with reasonable care. Courts rely on this evidence to decide fault and compensation. Knowing what proof matters is the difference between winning and losing a case.

Important factors to determine negligence include:

The testimony of the parties
Witness testimony
Accident reconstruction
Expert testimony (including peer-reviewed studies and industry articles)
Photographs and videos
Diagrams and other demonstrative evidence

Why is Comparative Fault Important if Michigan is a No-Fault State?

Comparative fault or comparative negligence only applies to cases about non-economic damages. These cases are also known as “third-party” cases or negligence cases. To obtain compensation for pain and suffering and emotional distress, the plaintiff must still show that the defendant was at least 51% at fault for causing the plaintiff’s injuries.

However, comparative fault has nothing to do with Michigan no-fault benefits.
Michigan no-fault benefits refer to Personal Injury Protection (PIP) benefits that are included in almost all insurance policies and under Michigan law. This is why Michigan is referred to as a “no-fault state.”

Michigan no-fault benefits provide economic benefits for the injured party. A person in Michigan can obtain Michigan no-fault benefits even if they are 100% at-fault for causing their own injuries.

What are Examples of Michigan No-Fault Benefits?

Michigan law provides a wide array of no-fault benefits, or PIP benefits, for individuals injured in a motor vehicle accident. These benefits include:

Payment of medical expenses: This includes hospital bills, doctor’s bills, physical therapy, rehabilitation, prescription drugs, out-of-pocket costs, co-payments, and home health aides.
Lost wages: An injured person is entitled to receive up to 85% of their gross wages for 3 years following the motor vehicle accident.
Replacement services: If a person is replacing the household chores the injured person did before the crash, but cannot do because of their injuries, that person is entitled to receive $20 per day for the work performed.
Attendant Care: This is more personal care required after a motor vehicle accident. It includes activities such as assisting an injured person in the bathroom, getting dressed, changing bandages, performing hygiene, and other similar tasks. Attendant care is paid at an hourly rate, just like an attending nurse is paid in a medical setting.

Why Does the 51% Rule Matter?

Settlement: Success turns on keeping plaintiff fault below the 51% bar.
Defense Strategy: Defendants and insurance companies focus heavily on building evidence to push the plaintiff’s fault over 50% so they pay zero.
Jury Instructions: Verdict forms are structured around this threshold.
Valuation: It affects case valuation, mediation strategy, and trial themes.

What Are Ways to Reduce Comparative Negligence?

Do not talk to the insurance company or their lawyers after a car accident or personal injury. It is best to contact a Michigan personal injury law firm to find out your rights and how they apply to your situation. It is important that you control the narrative of how and why the defendant is at fault for causing your injuries.

Contact the Lee Steinberg Law Firm today at 1-800-LEE-FREE (1-800-533-3733) for a free consultation.

About

Eric Steinberg

Eric Steinberg is a managing partner at the Lee Steinberg Law Firm, having recovered tens of millions for clients throughout Michigan. Attorney Steinberg has almost 20 years of experience handling personal injury, auto accidents, big truck accidents, premises liability, medical malpractice, nursing home injury, and dog bite cases.

He is one of Michigan’s leading authorities on personal injury law, having served as the President of the Michigan Association for Justice (MAJ).  As an advocate for ensuring people have access to justice, Attorney Steinberg believes all injured individuals should be able to obtain legal representation at their most difficult times. As a result, all clients at his firm never pay an attorney fee or any costs until the outcome of their case is successful.  Attorney Steinberg has tried multiple cases to verdict and handles all facets of the Lee Steinberg Law Firm. He has been named a Michigan Super Lawyer by his peers as one of the top personal injury attorneys in the State of Michigan. Attorney Steinberg is also a frequent speaker at seminars where he teaches other lawyers about updates in personal injury law, discovery tactics, and trial advocacy.

Need Help?

Get started with your free case evaluation

By submitting, you agree to our Privacy Policy Disclaimer and Terms.

Settlement

$5,750,000

Premises Liability

A single father of two children sustained a below the knee amputation when a hi-lo driver struck our client at a worksite. Our client had to undergo multiple surgeries and extensive rehabilitation.

Settlement

$2,250,000

Car Accident

Plaintiff was paralyzed from the waist down after being struck by a car traveling approximately 50 mph. The Plaintiff was riding a bicycle on a sidewalk and had the right of way to cross the intersection when the car made a turn, striking him directly. At first, the defendant denied liability but the responding policy officer placed the at-fault driver at-fault. In addition, our firm performed our own investigation, including taking witness statements and meeting with experts to solidify the negligence of the at-fault driver. Our client suffered a fractured vertebra in the cervical spine with edema of the spinal cord. He lost the ability to fully use his extremities and will likely be wheelchair bound for the rest of his life. He also suffered a mild to moderate traumatic brain injury.

Verdict

$1,855,000

Car Accident

Our client was killed while traveling on I-75 in Genesee County when a wheel fell of defendant’s pick-up truck, which was pulling a trailer. The wheel flew over the median wall and through the windshield of the decedent, causing fatal injuries. The defendant initially denied any wrongdoing and attributed the entire accident to a freak occurrence. However, through aggressive investigation by our firm, including the hiring of multiple experts including an accident reconstructionist and metallurgist, the Lee Steinberg Law Firm proved the horrible tragedy was the fault of the defendant and could have easily been prevented through basic inspection.

Settlement

$1,300,000

Construction Accident

The Lee Steinberg Law Firm secured a settlement for a man injured while on a work-site. As he was placing his hand on a plywood door frame, the frame gave way causing him to fall 14 feet. The frame had not been secured properly by another contractor at the job site. The 54-year-old landed on both feet, shattering both heals and ankles, requiring multiple surgeries and fully disabling him from further employment.

Verdict

$1,100,000

Medical Malpractice

A jury awarded $1,100,000 in a failure to diagnose case.

ARBITRATION

$1,020,000

Ride Sharing Accident

Our client was seriously injured while a passenger in a ride share vehicle for a major ride share company when her vehicle was rear-ended by a hit-and-run driver. Following the accident, she had a low back fusion surgery. She turned to the ride share company for the payment of Michigan no-fault benefits and uninsured motorist benefits. The ride share company terminated benefits refused to pay outstanding no-fault benefits including pain and suffering compensation. After aggressively pursuing her claims, our legal team obtained a significant arbitration award.

Settlement

$1,000,000

Wrongful Death

A driver on M30 in Gladwin County failed to properly slow down for traffic that was waiting in line to make a left turn. After braking at the last second, the defendant, who was traveling over 90 mph, swerved into oncoming traffic and struck the vehicle the plaintiff operated. The crash was extremely violent, causing the plaintiff to sustain fatal injuries.

Settlement

$1,000,000

Car Crash

A Shiawassee County man was operating a sedan when he was hit crossing an intersection by another vehicle that failed to see him. The collision was horrific and our client’s car was totaled. The “jaws of life” were used to extract him from the wreck. Our law office retained an accident reconstruction expert to investigation and explain why the other vehicle was at-fault for causing the accident. A trucking expert was also retained. After an intensive period of discovery, the defendant had no ability to dispute liability and was forced to accept blame. His injuries included a low back fusion, an operation to repair a torn left shoulder, multiple oral surgeries and depression.

Settlement

$870,000

Car Accident

Plaintiff was in a line of traffic on Haggerty Road when a vehicle suddenly stopped in front of him. Plaintiff attempted to swerve away from the vehicle and was struck by another vehicle during his evasive action. Plaintiff sustained a serious low back injury during this crash, necessitating extensive treatment including a lumbar spinal fusion surgery. The Lee Steinberg Law Firm was able to recover lost wages, the payment of medical bills, payment to family members for attendant care and replacement services, as well as pain and suffering.

Settlement

$850,000

Car Accident

Our client was walking in a popular shopping mall when she was hit by a car. The driver of the car was adamant he was not at-fault for causing the crash. The insurance company for the driver placed all the blame for the accident on our client. As a result of the crash, our client sustained a fetal placental abruption. The medical examiner called it a stillbirth. The defense disputed the fetus was viable and did not want to pay anything. After aggressive and persistent discovery, including numerous depositions and the use of experts, our firm resolved the lawsuit for the family for $850,000.

Settlement

$850,000

Car Wreck

Woman was hit by a drunk driver in Midland County. The crash lead to three separate surgeries, including a repair of a shattered left femur, repair of a fracture to the right distal humeral shaft and a right ankle fracture repair. The plaintiff was in rehabilitation for three months following the car accident. She was left with permanent scarring and other permanent ailments.

Settlement

$750,000

Car Accident

A commercial truck driver failed to notice that traffic had come to a stop and rear-ended the pick-up truck our client occupied. The force of that impact propelled the pick-up truck into the vehicle in front of it causing a chain reaction. Five vehicles were ultimately involved in the crash. After a tough battle, our client passed away from his injuries.