Texas Property Code § 33.001 establishes the state's comparative negligence standard, allowing plaintiffs to recover damages even when partially at fault—but with a critical catch. Unlike pure comparative negligence states, Texas imposes a 51% bar: you cannot recover any damages if you are 51% or more responsible for the accident. This threshold creates a significant strategic battleground in settlement negotiations.

The statute reads that "a claimant's recovery in a civil action is reduced in proportion to the percentage of liability attributable to the claimant." This means if you're 30% at fault, your settlement is reduced by 30%. If you're 50% at fault, your recovery is cut in half. But if you're found 51% or more at fault, you recover nothing—regardless of the defendant's negligence.

Why the 51% Bar Changes Everything

Insurance companies exploit the 51% threshold aggressively during settlement negotiations. They know that if they can push fault percentages toward 50%, they gain enormous leverage. A plaintiff who might otherwise recover $100,000 suddenly faces the possibility of recovering nothing if fault allocation shifts just one percentage point beyond the bar.

This creates artificial settlement pressure. Defendants and insurers argue for higher fault percentages for plaintiffs, knowing that even modest increases in comparative negligence can devastate recovery. Without financial stability, many injured plaintiffs fold under this pressure and accept reduced settlements simply to avoid the risk of recovering nothing.

How Comparative Negligence Affects Settlement Calculations

In Texas, settlement value starts with total damages—medical costs, lost wages, pain and suffering, and related losses—then adjusts for comparative negligence. The calculation is simple: total claim value multiplied by the percentage of fault not assigned to the plaintiff determines recovery.



For example, a $150,000 claim reduced by 25% fault results in $112,500, while 50% fault cuts recovery to $75,000. At 51% fault, recovery is eliminated entirely. This steep cutoff makes fault allocation one of the most disputed issues in Texas personal injury cases.

The 51% Bar: When You Lose Everything

The 51% bar creates a cliff-edge risk that doesn't exist in pure comparative negligence states. In California or New York, a plaintiff found 99% at fault still recovers 1% of damages. In Texas, that same plaintiff recovers nothing. This binary outcome—all or nothing once you cross the threshold—transforms settlement strategy entirely.

Insurance companies use this threat strategically. They may initially claim you're 30% at fault, then gradually increase that percentage during negotiations. By the time you're facing a settlement offer, they're arguing you're 50% at fault—close enough to the bar that the risk of trial becomes terrifying. Many plaintiffs settle at this point simply to avoid the possibility of recovering nothing.

Strategic Implications of the Bar for Your Case

Understanding the 51% bar's strategic implications helps you evaluate settlement offers more clearly. If evidence genuinely supports your 30% comparative negligence, an insurer claiming 50% is negotiating in bad faith. Your attorney can challenge this aggressively, knowing the legal standard and available evidence don't support such high fault allocation.

However, if the evidence truly is unclear—if witnesses conflict, causation is disputed, or accident reconstruction is ambiguous—then you're genuinely in a gray zone. This uncertainty is precisely what insurance companies exploit. With pre-settlement funding, you can afford to pursue litigation and expert testimony to clarify this uncertainty, rather than settling under pressure.

How Evidence and Investigation Shape Fault Allocation

Comparative negligence determinations rest on evidence. Police reports, witness statements, accident reconstruction, medical records, and expert testimony all inform fault conclusions. The quality and thoroughness of investigation directly affects whether your comparative negligence is fairly assessed or inflated by defendants.

A thorough investigation uncovers evidence that supports your position: dash cam footage showing the other driver running a red light, witness statements corroborating your account, medical evidence linking your injuries to the accident mechanism the other driver created. Conversely, a weak investigation allows defendants to fill evidentiary gaps with their own narrative.

The Cost of Thorough Investigation

Comprehensive investigation requires resources. Accident reconstruction experts cost $3,000–$8,000. Medical experts cost $2,000–$5,000. Witness depositions, records requests, and legal research add thousands more. Insurance companies count on injured plaintiffs lacking resources to fund this investigation, allowing defendants to control the narrative by default.

Pre-settlement funding removes this financial barrier. With cash advances available quickly, your attorney can fund investigative work upfront, knowing the funding will be repaid from settlement proceeds. This shifts the negotiating dynamic; you're no longer constrained by financial limitations, and defendants cannot win by simply outlasting your resources.

Texas Juries and the Burden of Proof in Comparative Negligence Cases

If your case proceeds to trial, a Texas jury will determine comparative negligence based on evidence presented at trial. The standard is preponderance of the evidence—more likely than not—not beyond reasonable doubt. This lower standard favors plaintiffs in many situations, but juries are unpredictable, and comparative negligence determinations are particularly vulnerable to jury bias and confusion.



Some juries struggle with the comparative negligence concept, viewing it as "both parties are at fault, so we'll split the difference" rather than carefully weighing each party's actual conduct. This middle-ground tendency can inflate plaintiff negligence percentages beyond what evidence actually supports. Your attorney uses jury instructions, expert testimony, and closing argument to combat this bias.

Texas Statute and Case Law on Comparative Negligence

Texas comparative negligence law is governed by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 33.001, with further interpretation provided by decisions from the Texas Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. These rulings clarify how fault percentages are determined across different factual scenarios.



The Texas State Law Library offers research materials on comparative negligence principles, burden of proof, and jury instructions. Texas courts consistently require that fault allocations be supported by evidence rather than speculation, making prior case decisions a useful benchmark when evaluating whether settlement offers align with legal standards.

When Pre-Settlement Funding Becomes Essential

Pre-settlement funding becomes especially important in comparative negligence cases because the stakes are so high. A single percentage point can mean tens of thousands of dollars in lost recovery. With financial pressure mounting, many plaintiffs settle at unfair comparative negligence percentages simply because they cannot afford to wait for a better offer or prepare for trial.

Best Call Funding enables you to maintain financial stability while your attorney builds the strongest comparative negligence defense. You can afford expert witnesses, thorough investigation, and prolonged negotiation—the tools that demonstrate your minimal fault and maximize recovery. Clients only get paid if they win the case, aligning our interests with yours completely.

How Funding Removes Settlement Pressure

When you're facing bills, medical expenses, and lost income, settlement pressure becomes unbearable. Insurance companies know this and use comparative negligence disputes to extend negotiations, hoping financial desperation will motivate acceptance of unfair offers.

Pre-settlement funding removes this dynamic entirely. With living expenses covered and medical care accessible, you can wait indefinitely for fair value.

This patience itself becomes negotiating leverage. Defendants recognize that you're not desperate and won't fold under pressure. This often motivates them toward reasonable settlement offers rather than prolonged disputes or trial risk.

Moving Forward With Your Comparative Negligence Case

Texas’s comparative negligence law creates both opportunity and risk. You may still recover damages when partially at fault, but insurers often try to inflate fault percentages to reduce or eliminate recovery. Understanding this framework—and having the financial stability to pursue full case value—can make the difference between fair compensation and a pressured settlement.



If financial strain is affecting your ability to wait, pre-settlement funding can help. Best Call Funding offers non-recourse settlement funding, meaning repayment occurs only if your case succeeds. With financial support, your attorney can negotiate from a position of strength. You can apply online or contact Best Call Funding at (844) 676-CASH (2274) to discuss your case.

Frequently Asked Questions