These two terms get set against each other as though a reader has to choose between them. In practice they are not alternatives a person picks. They are the rules of whichever state’s law governs, and the difference between them decides whether partial responsibility reduces a claim or ends it.
Nevada’s answer is usually summarised as the “51% bar.” That label is close enough to be useful and wrong in a way that matters, because Nevada’s statute does not set a percentage at all.
What follows is the distinction, where Nevada sits in it, and what the statute does once the question of a bar is past.
Key Takeaways
- Contributory negligence is the older, stricter approach: any responsibility on the injured person’s part defeats the claim entirely.
- Comparative negligence divides responsibility instead of using it as a disqualifier. It comes in a pure form and a modified form.
- Nevada uses a modified form. NRS 41.141 lets a claim survive while the claimant’s own negligence so long as it stays, in the words of the statute, “not greater than” the negligence of those sued.
- That is a comparison, not a percentage. In a case with more than one defendant the measure is their combined negligence, so no fixed number describes the threshold.
- Clearing the bar is not the end of apportionment. Under NRS 41.141(4), each defendant is generally liable only for its own percentage share of the judgment.
- A defendant who settles before judgment drops out of the comparison the jury is shown.
The Three Systems, Briefly
Contributory negligence treats any fault on the injured person’s side as fatal. A claimant found responsible to even a small degree recovers nothing. It is a rule of disqualification rather than division, and the consequence is that a defendant who can establish a modest share of blame against a claimant defeats the claim outright rather than shrinking it.
Pure comparative negligence takes the opposite approach. Responsibility is divided and the recovery is reduced to match, with no cut-off. A claimant who was substantially responsible still recovers the portion attributable to others.
Modified comparative negligence sits between the two. Responsibility is divided as under the pure form, but only as far as a threshold. Beyond it the claim is defeated outright instead of reducing any further.
These are descriptions of three approaches, not of which state uses which. That varies, it changes, and the only answer that matters to a given claim is the one supplied by the law governing it.
What Nevada’s Statute Actually Says
Nevada’s rule is in NRS 41.141. Once a defendant pleads comparative negligence, subsection 1 keeps the claimant’s recovery alive provided their own negligence was — in the wording the statute uses — “not greater than” the negligence of those they have sued.
Two things follow immediately. Nevada is not a contributory negligence state, since a claimant’s own carelessness does not by itself defeat the claim. Nor is it a pure comparative state, because a point exists beyond which the claim is lost instead of merely reduced.
The operative words are “not greater than.” A claimant whose share is smaller than the other side’s is within the rule. A claimant whose share is equal to the other side’s is also within it, because equal is not greater. Only a share that exceeds the other side’s falls outside.
Why “51% Bar” Is the Wrong Label Here
The shorthand circulating for Nevada’s rule is the 51% bar, sometimes alongside a 50% bar described as its stricter cousin. Both labels assume something the statute does not say.
The statute does not fix a percentage. It sets up a comparison between the claimant’s negligence and that of “the parties to the action against whom recovery is sought.” In a straightforward case with one claimant and one defendant, that comparison does produce a figure that behaves like a threshold, because the two shares have to total everything between them.
Add a second defendant and the arithmetic changes. The claimant’s share is now measured against the combined negligence of both. A claimant found more responsible than either defendant individually may still be less responsible than the two of them together, and the statute asks only the second question.
The practical consequence is that the threshold moves with the composition of the case. Identifying every party who contributed is therefore not only a question of how much insurance is available; it changes the figure the claimant’s own share is measured against. There is more on how that plays out in a collision on our Nevada personal injury page.
What the Jury Is Told, and What It Returns
Subsection 2 sets out the mechanics, and they explain why a claimant rarely hears a single reduced figure announced in court.
The judge has to tell the jury that the claimant takes nothing if their negligence exceeds the defendant’s, or the defendants’ combined. Should the jury decide the claimant is entitled to recover, it then returns two separate things. The first is a general verdict fixing the full damages, which the statute directs be arrived at “without regard to the plaintiff’s comparative negligence.” The second is a special verdict putting a percentage of negligence against each party still in the case.
So the jury values the losses in full, then assigns the percentages separately. Reducing one by the other is arithmetic done afterwards on the figure the jury gave. This is why the headline number a jury returns and the amount a claimant receives are different quantities, and why the percentages are contested as hard as the damages.
After the Bar: Who Pays What
Clearing the threshold settles whether there is a recovery. It does not settle who pays it, and that is a separate provision.
Under subsection 4, where recovery is allowed against more than one defendant, each defendant is generally liable to the plaintiff only for that portion of the judgment “which represents the percentage of negligence attributable to that defendant.” Liability is several rather than joint, so a claimant with a judgment against two defendants does not simply collect the whole of it from whichever one can pay.
Subsection 5 carves out categories where that does not apply, leaving joint and several liability undisturbed in actions based on strict liability, intentional torts, the emission, disposal or spillage of toxic or hazardous substances, concerted acts of the defendants, and injuries from products manufactured, distributed, sold or used in Nevada.
The combined effect is that percentages do two jobs in a Nevada case. They determine whether the claim survives at all, and they determine how much of the judgment each defendant is answerable for.
A Settling Defendant Leaves the Comparison
Subsection 3 addresses what happens when one defendant resolves before judgment.
Where a defendant settles with the plaintiff before judgment, that defendant’s comparative negligence and the amount of the settlement “must not thereafter be admitted” in evidence or considered by the jury. The judge deducts the settlement from the net sum the plaintiff is otherwise entitled to recover under the general and special verdicts.
The jury therefore decides the case it is shown, among the parties still in it, and the settlement is accounted for by the court afterwards rather than argued in front of the jury.
Talk to a Nevada Car Accident Lawyer
Vaksman Khalfin, PC acts for injured people across Nevada from the firm’s Las Vegas office at 10161 Park Run Drive, Suite 150. The first consultation is free, and injury claims are handled on a contingency-fee basis: there is no upfront cost, attorney’s fees are owed only out of a recovery, and fees and case costs are separate items set out in the written agreement. Wider material sits in the Nevada personal injury guides.
Reviewed by Robert B. Vaksman, Partner, Vaksman Khalfin, PC (admitted in Nevada). Last reviewed: 10/23/2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Contributory negligence treats any fault on the injured person's part as defeating the claim entirely. Comparative negligence divides responsibility and reduces the recovery accordingly, either without limit under the pure form or up to a threshold under the modified form.
No. Under NRS 41.141 a claimant's own negligence bars recovery only once it exceeds that of the parties being sued, which makes the rule comparative rather than disqualifying.
That is the common shorthand, and it is imprecise. The statute sets no percentage. It compares the claimant's negligence with that of the parties from whom recovery is sought, which in a case with several defendants means their combined negligence.
No, and that is the practical consequence of the statute being a comparison. The measure is the combined negligence of the parties sued, so it moves with how many of them there are and what shares they are assigned.
The jury first returns the total damages without regard to the claimant's comparative negligence, and separately returns percentages for each party remaining in the action. The reduction is then applied to that total.
Generally not. Under NRS 41.141(4), each defendant is liable only for the portion representing its own percentage of negligence. Subsection 5 preserves joint and several liability in defined categories, including strict liability, intentional torts and concerted acts.
That defendant's comparative negligence and the settlement amount are not admitted in evidence or considered by the jury. The court deducts the settlement from the net sum recoverable under the verdicts.
Yes, by special verdict indicating the percentage attributable to each party remaining in the action, alongside a general verdict stating the total damages.
