Home › Resources › Comparative Fault in Utah & Nevada

Comparative Fault: What If the Accident Was Partly My Fault? (Utah vs. Nevada)

By the Apis Felix Law Trial Team — Licensed in Nevada & UtahAttorney-reviewed — July 4, 2026

How modified comparative fault actually works

Modified comparative fault means your own carelessness doesn't automatically wipe out your claim — but it isn't free of consequences either. Instead of an all-or-nothing rule, both Utah and Nevada use a system where fault is divided into percentages among everyone involved, including you, and your recovery is adjusted to match.

Here's the basic mechanic: if a jury (or an insurance adjuster, earlier in the process) decides you were 20% at fault for a crash and your total damages are $100,000, your recoverable amount is reduced by that 20% — down to $80,000. The word "modified" refers to the cutoff point where this reduction stops applying and your claim is barred entirely. That cutoff is where Utah and Nevada diverge, and it's worth understanding exactly how.

Utah's rule vs. Nevada's rule, side by side

Utah's modified comparative fault statute, Utah Code §78B-5-818, bars a claimant from recovering damages once their own fault reaches 50%. In plain terms: if you are found 49% at fault in Utah, you can still recover 51% of your damages. If you are found 50% at fault, Utah law bars recovery entirely. Fifty percent is the line, and it cuts against the claimant right at the midpoint.

Nevada's rule, NRS 41.141, is worded differently and lands in a different place. Nevada bars recovery only when the claimant's fault is greater than the combined fault of the defendants being sued. Practically, that means at 50% fault, a Nevada claimant may still recover — because 50% is not "greater than" the remaining 50%. Only at 51% or more does Nevada's bar apply. That one-percentage-point difference between the two states — Utah cutting off at 50%, Nevada cutting off above 50% — is a real, meaningful distinction, and it's a common point of confusion because the numbers "50" and "51" get mixed up in casual conversation.

In both states, below the bar, your damages are reduced dollar-for-dollar by your fault percentage. Neither state's rule eliminates a claim just because you share some blame — the question is always how much blame, and where the state's line falls.

Exceptions can shorten or extend deadlines and can affect how fault rules apply to your situation — confirm yours with a lawyer.

Who decides the percentages — and when

Fault percentages don't come from a fixed formula; they come from an evaluation of the evidence, and different people make that evaluation at different stages. Early in a claim, an insurance adjuster reviews the police report, photographs, and initial statements and forms an opinion about how fault should be divided. That opinion often becomes the basis for a settlement offer — and it is an opinion, not a legal finding.

If a case doesn't resolve through negotiation and proceeds to litigation, the fault percentages become a question of fact for a jury (or a judge, in a bench trial) to decide after hearing all the evidence. That formal finding is what actually controls the final outcome. The distance between an adjuster's early opinion and what a jury might ultimately find is often significant — which is one reason a claim shouldn't be evaluated, or settled, based only on the insurer's first read of fault.

How insurers can use partial fault against you

It is common industry practice for insurance companies to assign a fault percentage to a claimant early in the process, sometimes before an investigation is complete, and to use that percentage to justify a lower settlement offer. A claimant who is unrepresented and speaking with an adjuster shortly after a crash — often while still injured, stressed, and without access to the full evidentiary picture — is in a weaker position to push back on that number.

This is not a claim that any particular insurer acts in bad faith; it's simply how claims evaluation works across the industry. Adjusters are trained to look for facts that support a higher fault percentage for the claimant, because a higher percentage lowers the payout in a modified comparative fault state. Recognizing that this evaluation is an argument — not a neutral, fixed fact — is often the first step toward a fairer resolution.

Evidence that moves fault percentages

Because the fault percentage is contested rather than measured, the evidence gathered — and how quickly it's gathered — can materially change the outcome. Some of the most common categories include:

• Physical evidence at the scene: skid marks, debris fields, and final resting positions of vehicles, which are often altered or lost within hours of a crash.
• Vehicle data: event-data-recorder ("black box") downloads showing speed, braking, and steering input in the seconds before impact.
• Independent witnesses: people with no connection to either driver, whose accounts often carry more weight than the drivers' own statements.
• Video footage: traffic cameras, business surveillance, and dashcams, which are frequently overwritten or deleted on short retention cycles.
• Expert reconstruction: accident-reconstruction analysis that can model speed, angle of impact, and sequence of events from physical and digital evidence.

The common thread is time. Evidence that could clarify — or shift — a fault percentage often degrades or disappears quickly, which is part of why early legal involvement can matter even in a case that looks straightforward at first.

A hypothetical example

Consider this hypothetical example: a driver in Salt Lake City is rear-ended after braking suddenly for a yellow light. The insurer for the rear driver initially argues the front driver braked "unnecessarily hard" and assigns 15% fault to the front driver. Under Utah's rule, that 15% simply reduces the front driver's recovery by 15% — it does not come close to the 50% bar. This hypothetical example illustrates how a fault percentage below the bar affects the math without ending the claim, and it also shows why insurers may still attempt an aggressive fault allocation even in cases where the bar itself is not realistically at issue.

This article is general information, not legal advice; reading it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is different, and deadlines and rules change — confirm how the law applies to your situation with a licensed lawyer. Apis Felix Law, a trade name of Deseret Lawyers PLLC. Attorney advertising. Kevin Peterson is the attorney responsible for this content and is licensed in Nevada (Bar No. 14598) and Utah (Bar No. 18723).