Utah’s comparative fault law under Code Section 78B-5-818 follows a modified comparative negligence system where a plaintiff can recover damages only if they are less than 50% at fault, with any recovery reduced proportionally by their assigned percentage of fault.
Last updated: July 2026
Key Takeaways
- Utah Code Section 78B-5-818 bars recovery if the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault for their own injuries.
- A plaintiff who is less than 50% at fault can still recover, but their damages are reduced by their percentage of fault.
- Utah’s comparative fault system applies to negligence-based claims including car accidents, premises liability, and product liability.
- The jury allocates fault among all parties, including the plaintiff, defendants, and any non-parties who contributed to the harm.
- Comparative fault does not apply to intentional torts or strict liability claims in the same manner.
Utah’s comparative fault law is one of the most important rules in any personal injury case. It determines whether an injured person can recover compensation at all and, if they can, how much their recovery will be reduced. The rule is straightforward in principle but often surprising to injury victims who do not realize that even partial fault can significantly affect their case.
The key distinction that many Utah injury victims miss is between “pure” and “modified” comparative fault. Some states allow recovery no matter how high the plaintiff’s fault is. Utah does not. Crossing the 50% threshold is a complete bar to recovery, which means that even a 50-50 fault split results in zero compensation. This makes early and accurate fault assessment a critical strategic decision in every case.
What does Utah Code Section 78B-5-818 specifically say?
Utah Code Section 78B-5-818 establishes the modified comparative fault standard for Utah. The statute provides that “the fault of a person who seeks recovery shall not alone bar recovery” but “the recovery shall be reduced proportionally to the fault of the person seeking recovery.” However, the statute goes on to state that if the plaintiff’s fault “is as great as or greater than the fault of all persons” against whom recovery is sought, the plaintiff “may not recover.”
The critical language is “as great as or greater than.” This means that if the plaintiff’s fault percentage equals or exceeds the combined fault of the defendants, recovery is barred entirely. In practice, this operates as a 50% bar. If the jury finds the plaintiff 50% at fault and the defendants collectively 50% at fault, the plaintiff receives nothing. If the plaintiff is 49% at fault and the defendants 51%, the plaintiff can recover, but damages are reduced by 49%.
Section 78B-5-818 also addresses the allocation of fault among multiple parties. The fact finder must determine the percentage of fault attributable to each person or entity who contributed to the alleged injury, including the plaintiff, each defendant, and any settling or non-party tortfeasors. This comprehensive fault allocation ensures that the plaintiff’s fault is measured against the total universe of responsible parties.
How does the 50% bar rule affect my Utah personal injury claim?
The 50% bar rule has a profound impact on both case value and litigation strategy in Utah personal injury cases. Because the plaintiff’s fault percentage is compared against the combined fault of all defendants, the defense has a strong incentive to point to any conduct by the plaintiff that contributed to the accident. Even a small percentage of plaintiff fault reduces the potential recovery, and if the combined defense argument pushes plaintiff fault to 50% or higher, the claim becomes worthless.
In car accident cases, common examples of plaintiff fault include speeding, failing to yield, distracted driving, or not wearing a seatbelt. In premises liability cases, plaintiff fault might include ignoring warning signs, walking in restricted areas, or failing to observe obvious hazards. In product liability cases, misuse of the product or failure to follow safety instructions can be raised as comparative fault.
This dynamic creates a powerful incentive for early settlement negotiations. Both sides must evaluate how a jury might allocate fault, and the uncertainty around that allocation often drives settlement decisions. A case with strong liability but some plaintiff fault may still settle for a significant amount, but the comparative fault risk is always present.
How is fault allocated among multiple defendants in Utah?
When multiple parties may have contributed to the plaintiff’s injury, Utah law requires the fact finder to assign a specific percentage of fault to each party. This includes the plaintiff, each named defendant, and any non-parties who may have caused or contributed to the injury. The allocation is made based on the evidence presented at trial, and the percentages must total 100%.
The allocation of fault is critical because of Utah’s several-only liability rule under Section 78B-5-820. Since each defendant is generally only responsible for their own percentage of fault, the allocation directly determines what each defendant will pay. A defendant found 10% at fault pays only 10% of the economic and non-economic damages, absent the 50% exception for economic damages.
Utah’s comparative fault statute also allows defendants to point to the fault of non-parties who are not named in the lawsuit. If a defendant argues that a non-party caused or contributed to the injury, the jury can allocate fault to that non-party, which reduces the defendants’ shares. However, the plaintiff cannot collect from a non-party, so this can reduce the total amount the plaintiff can actually recover.
| Plaintiff Fault % | Can Recover? | How Much? |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | Yes | 100% of damages |
| 25% | Yes | 75% of damages (reduced by 25%) |
| 49% | Yes | 51% of damages (reduced by 49%) |
| 50% | No | Nothing |
| 75% | No | Nothing |
Does comparative fault apply to all types of Utah personal injury claims?
Utah’s comparative fault statute applies primarily to negligence-based claims, which covers the vast majority of personal injury cases. Car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle crashes, slip and falls, and most premises liability claims all fall under the comparative fault framework. However, there are important exceptions.
Intentional torts such as assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress are generally not subject to comparative fault principles. A defendant who intentionally harms another person cannot typically argue that the plaintiff shares some fault for the intentional act. Similarly, strict liability claims in the products liability context may limit the application of comparative fault, though Utah courts have allowed some comparative fault analysis in product defect cases involving user conduct.
Workers’ compensation claims operate outside the comparative fault system entirely. In exchange for providing no-fault benefits to injured workers, Utah’s workers’ compensation system bars most employees from suing their employers for negligence. Comparative fault does not apply because fault is not at issue. However, third-party claims against someone other than the employer may still be subject to comparative fault analysis.
How can a Utah personal injury lawyer help with comparative fault issues?
An experienced Utah personal injury attorney understands how to build a case that minimizes the plaintiff’s comparative fault percentage. This involves gathering evidence that shows the defendant’s conduct was the primary cause of the accident, presenting the plaintiff’s actions in the most favorable light, and countering defense arguments about plaintiff negligence. Strategic decisions about which defendants to name and how to address potential non-party fault can also affect the fault allocation.
Attorney involvement is especially important early in the case, when evidence is fresh and before the plaintiff has made statements that could be used against them. Insurance adjusters are trained to look for conduct that suggests plaintiff fault, and recorded statements given without counsel can create significant comparative fault problems later. An attorney can help the plaintiff avoid these pitfalls and present the best possible case on the fault issue.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens if I am 50% at fault in a Utah car accident?
Under Utah Code Section 78B-5-818, if you are found 50% at fault, you cannot recover any damages from the other driver. The bar applies when your fault is “as great as or greater than” the combined fault of all defendants.
Does Utah allow pure comparative fault like California?
No. Utah uses modified comparative fault with a 50% bar. Some states allow recovery regardless of fault percentage, but Utah bars recovery entirely when the plaintiff is 50% or more at fault.
Can not wearing a seatbelt reduce my Utah car accident settlement?
Utah has a mandatory seatbelt law, and failure to wear a seatbelt can be introduced as evidence of comparative fault. However, Utah law specifically limits how seatbelt non-use can be used in civil cases.
How does comparative fault work with multiple defendants in Utah?
The jury assigns a fault percentage to each defendant and to the plaintiff. Each defendant is generally liable only for their own percentage of damages under Utah’s several-only liability rule, and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their own fault percentage.
Can I still recover if I was speeding at the time of the accident?
It depends on the specific facts. Speeding can be considered comparative fault, but it does not automatically bar recovery. If the other driver was also negligent and your speed was less than 50% of the total fault, you can still recover a reduced amount.
Does comparative fault apply to insurance settlements or only to court judgments?
Comparative fault affects both. Insurance adjusters factor in comparative fault when evaluating settlement offers. An adjuster who believes you are 30% at fault will typically offer significantly less than the full value of your damages.
What evidence is used to determine fault percentages?
Police reports, witness statements, traffic camera footage, accident reconstruction analysis, cell phone records, and physical evidence from the scene are all used to determine fault. Expert testimony is often required in complex cases.
Can a Utah personal injury lawyer help reduce my comparative fault percentage?
Yes. An experienced attorney can gather evidence and develop legal arguments that minimize your assigned fault percentage, counter defense allegations of contributory negligence, and present your case effectively at trial or in settlement negotiations.
What steps can I take to protect my claim from comparative fault arguments?
To protect your claim from comparative fault arguments, avoid making statements about fault at the accident scene, do not give recorded statements to insurance companies without legal counsel, preserve all evidence including photos and witness contact information, seek medical attention promptly, and consult with a Utah personal injury attorney before discussing your case with anyone. Early legal guidance is the best defense against comparative fault arguments that could reduce or eliminate your recovery.
Injured in an accident in Utah? Jeremy D. Eveland, MBA, JD, can help you understand your legal rights and pursue the compensation you deserve.
Call (801) 613-1472 or visit jeremyeveland.com to schedule a consultation today.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult with a qualified Utah personal injury attorney for advice specific to your situation.
Comments are closed.