“Comparative fault” is a legal doctrine that assigns liability and reduces damages based on the degree of fault of each party involved in a dispute. In 1979, Louisiana adopted Act. No. 431, implementing a “Pure Comparative Fault” system. From 1980 until 2025, this legislation fundamentally transformed Louisiana tort law. Before adopting the Pure Comparative Fault system, Louisiana followed the Contributory Negligence Doctrine, which completely barred recovery for any plaintiff who was found to be partially negligent in her own lawsuit.
Under the Pure Comparative Fault system, according to the Louisiana Supreme Court, a plaintiff’s negligence would only “diminish, not defeat, recovery as long as [the] plaintiff’s negligence is less than 100%.” Watson v. State Farm Fire and Cas. Ins. Co., 469 So. 2d 967 (La. 1985). Thus, for example, even if a plaintiff were 99% at fault for her own injury, such a plaintiff could still recover 1% of her damages from a defendant who was only 1% at fault.
This system required judges and juries to determine the degree or percentage of fault attributable to each person causing or contributing to the injury, death, or loss, regardless of whether the person was a party to the lawsuit, had the financial ability to pay, or possessed any statutory immunity. This system also eliminated traditional defenses that had previously barred recovery entirely, such as the doctrine of “Assumption of the Risk.” Such doctrines, the Louisiana Supreme Court held, were subsumed into the comparative fault analysis. Murray Ramada Inns, Inc., 521 So. 2d 1123 (La. 1988).
As of January 1, 2026, Louisiana’s Pure Comparative Fault landscape has been fundamentally changed against. With Act No. 15 of 2025, the Louisiana Legislature amended Civil Code article 2323 effective as of January 1, 2026 to establish a Modified Comparative Fault system that creates a threshold for complete recovery denial. Under amended article 2323(A)(2)(a), “If the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering injury, death, or loss is equal to or greater than fifty-one percent, then the person suffering injury, death, or loss shall not be entitled to recover.”
So before, where a plaintiff who was 99% at fault for her own injury could still recover 1% of her damages from the defendant, such a plaintiff is now barred from recovery because her fault is greater than 51%. But for any plaintiff whose negligence is less than 51%, the proportional reduction system remains in place. Article 2323(A)(2)(b) provides that “If the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering injury, death, or loss is less than fifty-one percent, then the amount of damages recoverable shall be reduced in proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering the injury, death, or loss.” However, article 2323(C) has an important exception for intentional torts: “If a person suffers injury, death, or loss as a result partly of his own negligence and partly as a result of an intentional tortfeasor, his claim for recovery of damages shall not be reduced.” This provision maintains the principle that intentional wrongdoers should not benefit from victim fault, regardless of the victim’s comparative negligence.
In short, Louisiana’s move to a Modified Comparative Fault system raises the stakes for plaintiffs and sharpens risk assessments for businesses and insurers. This shift affects settlement posture, claims valuation, and litigation strategy—making early investigation, clear documentation, and careful fault allocation more important than ever.