A rule for dividing blame after an accident, pure comparative fault lets an injured person recover money even if they were partly - or mostly - at fault, but the payout is reduced by that person's share of responsibility.

For example, if a jury decides someone's damages are $100,000 but finds that person 40% responsible, the recovery drops to $60,000. If the person is 90% responsible, recovery is still possible, but only for the remaining 10%. That makes this rule very different from systems that block recovery once a person crosses a certain fault percentage. The trap is obvious: insurance companies often try to inflate your share of blame to cut what they have to pay. They may point to a delayed medical visit, unclear photos, language gaps in reports, or a statement taken when you were shaken up.

In New York, this rule appears in CPLR § 1411. It can matter a lot in crashes during heavy winter conditions, including chain-reaction wrecks after a nor'easter or pileups on the Long Island Expressway, where several drivers may share fault. New York is also a no-fault insurance state, so basic medical and wage claims usually go through PIP first. To file a lawsuit for pain and suffering, an injured person generally must meet the state's serious injury threshold under Insurance Law § 5102(d). Even then, comparative fault can still reduce the final award.