As readers of this blog know, our state follows a straightforward rule that often decides settlement leverage: you can recover for a negligent crash so long as you were not more than 50% at fault.
If a jury (or the parties in negotiation) assigns you 20% of the blame, your damages are reduced by that 20 percent. However, if you are 51% at fault, you recover nothing. This “modified 51% bar” is spelled out in the comparative-negligence statute and applies across ordinary negligence actions, including motor-vehicle cases.
In practice, the percentages turn on evidence. A rear-end collision might begin with an inference against the trailing driver for following too closely. However, evidence of a sudden, unforeseeable stop or a third-car impact can shift shares markedly.
A left-turn crash often assigns significant fault to the turning driver for failing to yield. Yet, speed or distraction by the oncoming driver can move that needle back.
Even “no-contact” collisions, where you swerve to avoid someone else, are negotiable if you can prove the other driver’s negligence forced the maneuver. Because the statute reduces awards, rather than eliminating them below the 51% line, the battle is in the margins: every point of fault that moves changes the settlement math.
Documentation and evidence are key
All this underscores why documentation matters from day one. Scene photos, dashcam videos, event data, medical records and consistent treatment histories lend weight when adjusters or jurors apportion fault. Witnesses and timely statements help fill gaps. And, while Massachusetts’ no-fault PIP system covers initial medicals, your comparative-fault percentage will ultimately govern how much you take home on the bodily-injury claim. The legal standard is simple. Though, building the record that drives a favorable percentage is where cases are won.