Pennsylvania uses a modified comparative negligence rule, allowing injured drivers to recover damages even if they are partially at fault—but only up to a point. You may recover compensation if you are 50% or less at fault. If you are found 51% or more responsible, you cannot recover any damages, regardless of injury severity.

For example, if you are 30% at fault and the other driver is 70% at fault, you can recover 70% of your damages. If your total damages are $100,000, you would receive $70,000. However, if you are found 51% at fault and the other driver 49%, you recover nothing—even though fault is nearly evenly split.



The Legal Foundation: 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102

Pennsylvania's comparative negligence system is governed by 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 (Comparative Negligence — Pennsylvania), which fundamentally changed Pennsylvania personal injury law. This statute abolished the old doctrine of contributory negligence—a harsh rule where any fault by the plaintiff completely barred recovery—and replaced it with a modified comparative-fault system that allows injured plaintiffs to recover even when partially at fault.

Under the statute, a plaintiff may recover damages if their negligence is not greater than the defendant’s, but the recovery is reduced in proportion to their share of fault. In practice, this is known as the 51% rule: if you are 50% or less at fault, you can recover; if you are 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing. This threshold makes fault determination a decisive factor in whether you receive compensation.

How Pennsylvania Courts Determine Comparative Negligence

Pennsylvania courts assess comparative negligence by examining each party’s actions and comparing them to what a reasonably prudent person would have done under similar circumstances. Judges and juries consider factors such as traffic laws, road and weather conditions, visibility, vehicle speed, and driver attention.

Evidence may include police reports, accident reconstruction analysis, witness statements, dashcam footage, vehicle damage, and medical records. Insurance companies often present expert testimony to increase a plaintiff’s share of fault, which must be countered by strong evidence and expert analysis showing the other driver’s negligence was greater.

The Burden of Proof in Comparative Negligence Cases

The burden of proving comparative negligence falls on the defendant or their insurer—you don’t have to prove you were fault-free. However, this burden shift doesn’t guarantee a favorable outcome. Defense attorneys often work to assign plaintiffs a higher share of blame, which can reduce compensation or eliminate recovery entirely.

Common Scenarios Where Both Drivers Share Fault

Comparative negligence applies in many real-world accident scenarios. In a rear-end collision, the trailing driver is typically found more at fault because they failed to maintain a safe following distance. However, if the lead driver suddenly braked without brake lights functioning, comparative negligence might assign some fault to the lead driver for operating an unsafe vehicle. Both drivers share responsibility to some degree.

In intersection accidents, comparative negligence often becomes contested. If one driver ran a red light, but the other driver was speeding through a yellow light and texting, both drivers' actions contributed to the crash. A jury might find the red-light runner 65% at fault and the speeding driver 35% at fault. Each driver's recovery would be reduced accordingly.

Left-Turn Accidents and Multi-Factor Negligence

Left-turn accidents present another common comparative negligence scenario. The turning driver may bear primary responsibility for yielding to oncoming traffic, but if the oncoming driver was significantly exceeding the speed limit or failed to have headlights on during dawn conditions, comparative negligence assigns shared fault. Pennsylvania courts recognize that causation and negligence often involve multiple contributing factors.

The "Sudden Emergency" Doctrine and Comparative Negligence

Pennsylvania recognizes a “sudden emergency” doctrine that can affect how fault is assigned. If a driver faces an unexpected and unavoidable hazard—such as a child running into the street or another vehicle suddenly swerving—the law accounts for the split-second decisions made under emergency conditions.



A driver responding to a true sudden emergency may not be fully at fault, even if their reaction causes injury. However, the doctrine does not apply to dangers that should have been anticipated or emergencies caused by the driver’s own negligence, such as speeding or driving with poor visibility. Insurers often use this doctrine to argue for reduced fault, making it critical to challenge whether the situation was genuinely unavoidable.

Medical Records and Injury Severity's Role in Comparative Negligence Cases

Comparative negligence focuses on how an accident happened, not how serious the injuries are, but medical evidence still plays a major role in settlements and jury perception. Defense attorneys sometimes argue that severe injuries imply reckless or inattentive driving. While this argument has no legal basis for assigning fault, it can influence negotiations and juror psychology.



Strong medical documentation—prompt treatment, ongoing care, permanent injuries, and lost income—significantly improves your position. Clear, consistent records help demonstrate the full impact of the injuries and can lead juries to award more serious damages, even when fault is shared. Attorneys use this evidence not to prove negligence, but to justify meaningful compensation under Pennsylvania’s comparative negligence rules.

Acting Quickly: Why Delaying Your Case Is Costly

Pennsylvania’s statute of limitations for motor vehicle accident claims is four years from the date of injury. While that may seem generous, waiting too long can seriously weaken your case. Evidence degrades, witnesses forget details, and insurers gain leverage as deadlines approach. Taking early action preserves evidence and signals that you’re serious about pursuing your claim.

Importantly, filing early doesn’t require settling early. Many Pennsylvania injury victims facing comparative negligence disputes feel pressured to accept reduced settlements or continue their case while facing financial strain. Best Call Funding helps bridge this gap by offering non-recourse pre-settlement advances to plaintiffs with active cases and attorneys—meaning you repay only if you win or settle. If you recover nothing, you owe nothing.

Avoid Pressure from Comparative Negligence Disputes

This funding helps remove the financial strain that pushes plaintiffs into unfair settlements. You can reject low offers, preserve the integrity of your case, and give your attorney time to challenge defense arguments about shared fault. Most Pennsylvania plaintiffs receive about 10–15% of their expected settlement value, often enough to cover essential expenses. Funding decisions typically arrive within 1–24 business hours, with funds disbursed in 24–48 hours.

Don't Let Comparative Negligence Arguments Pressure You Into a Bad Settlement

Pennsylvania's comparative negligence system protects injured drivers—but only if you understand how it works and resist pressure to accept inadequate settlements. The 50% threshold, the reasonably prudent person standard, and the burden of proof all favor plaintiffs who stand firm and pursue fair recovery.

Understanding these rules is just the first step. Securing legal representation quickly is critical, and if you’re already represented and facing financial strain, pre-settlement funding may help. Best Call Funding has assisted thousands of Pennsylvania injury victims as their attorneys challenge comparative negligence arguments and pursue fair settlements across a wide range of personal injury cases.

Ready to apply? 

Call (844) 676-CASH (2274) or visit Best Call Funding to start your application today. Most applicants hear back within 24 business hours. Your attorney can coordinate directly with Best Call Funding, and there's no obligation—only the peace of mind that comes from knowing your case has financial backing while you pursue fair recovery despite comparative negligence disputes..

Frequently Asked Questions