Louisiana’s comparative-fault calculation has two separate steps: determine the injured person’s percentage of negligence, then apply the legal consequence of that finding. For claims governed by the amendment effective January 1, 2026, the consequence changes sharply at 51 percent. A 50 percent finding permits a proportionately reduced recovery; a 51 percent finding generally bars it.
The rule does not supply a formula for deciding who caused a crash. It also does not mean that an insurance adjuster’s initial percentage is final. The statute, the date of the event, and the evidence of each person’s conduct must be considered together.
What changed, and which events are covered?
Act 15 of 2025 amended Civil Code article 2323 and set January 1, 2026 as its effective date. The prior system reduced damages according to the injured person’s negligence without this new majority-fault cutoff. The amended system adds the bar at 51 percent while retaining proportional reduction below it.
Under the general rule in Civil Code article 6, substantive laws apply prospectively unless the legislature provides otherwise. An ordinary crash that occurred before January 1, 2026 therefore needs the prior-law analysis. Filing a lawsuit or negotiating a settlement after that date does not by itself make the new cutoff apply to an earlier accident.
The current article 2323 also preserves an important qualification: when harm results partly from the injured person’s negligence and partly from an intentional tortfeasor’s fault, paragraph C says the claim is not reduced. Whether conduct is intentional is a legal and factual question. Do not assume that any serious traffic violation fits that exception.
The percentage calculation
The following examples assume $100,000 in proven damages and an ordinary negligence claim governed by the amended rule. They illustrate only the effect of the injured person’s fault. They do not establish the amount of damages, available coverage, collectible funds, or net proceeds after other obligations.
Scroll horizontally to see all columns. Use the arrow keys when the table is focused.
| Injured person’s negligence | Effect under the general amended rule | Amount after that rule alone |
|---|---|---|
| 0% | No reduction for the injured person’s negligence | $100,000 |
| 20% | 20% reduction | $80,000 |
| 49% | 49% reduction | $51,000 |
| 50% | 50% reduction | $50,000 |
| 51% | Recovery barred | $0 |
The difference between the last two rows explains why a close allocation can substantially affect settlement decisions. It does not justify selecting a favorable percentage first and searching for support afterward. Both liability and the amount of damages still require proof.
How courts evaluate conduct
In LeBlanc v. Stevenson, decided October 17, 2000, the Louisiana Supreme Court discussed the factors from Watson used in allocating fault. They address awareness of danger, the risk created, the purpose of the conduct, the actors’ relative capacities, and circumstances requiring hurried action. The opinion predates the 2026 cutoff; it is useful background on evaluating conduct, not a decision applying the new bar.
LeBlanc involved an injury during an attempted vehicle tow. The court upheld a 60/40 allocation after examining the participants’ roles and the movement of the towing vehicle without an adequate warning or signal. The percentages came from those facts, not a rule assigning a standard share to anyone who helps with a tow.
The same need for a factual explanation applies to a collision. A lane change, a driver’s speed, visibility, and time to react may all matter. A traffic allegation or a person’s statement should be compared with the rest of the record rather than automatically converted into a fixed percentage.
Article 2323 requires a jury deciding comparative fault to be instructed on the article’s effect. That instruction tells jurors what their findings mean; it does not replace their responsibility to evaluate the evidence.
Other responsible people do not automatically increase your share
Article 2323 calls for allocation among all persons who caused or contributed to the harm. Its language includes nonparties and addresses persons who are insolvent, immune, or unidentified. A defendant’s allegation that another driver contributed should therefore be examined when supported by the facts.
But fault assigned to someone else is not automatically added to the injured person’s percentage. Imagine an allocation of 20 percent to the claimant, 50 percent to one driver, and 30 percent to another. The claimant’s share remains 20 percent. The existence of the second driver does not turn it into 50 percent or cross the 51 percent threshold.
Allocation and collection are different questions. Whether a particular defendant or policy can pay a particular portion requires a separate analysis of liability, coverage, and available resources. The arithmetic table above is not a promise that an insurer will pay the full remainder.
Crash responsibility and injury proof remain distinct
The parties may agree about the driving conduct while disagreeing about whether a particular condition resulted from the collision. They may instead agree about the injury while disputing responsibility for the impact. Medical causation, damages, and comparative negligence should be identified separately.
For a vehicle-damage argument, the discussion of minor-impact defenses explains why photographs and repair costs should be considered alongside medical evidence. For a truck case, the preservation-letter guide describes records that may help reconstruct the event. Neither category of evidence guarantees a particular fault allocation.
A claimant should preserve complete records, including material that may be unfavorable. Distinguish what you personally observed from later information or estimates. Do not alter a photograph, delete a message, or rehearse a different account to fit a desired percentage.
Applying the rule to an actual claim
The practical review begins with the accident date, the applicable law, each alleged act of negligence, and the evidence connecting it to the harm. An insurer’s assessment can then be compared with that record. Our separate article on responding to an insurer’s fault assessment addresses that process.
Our car accident practice and truck accident practice review these issues together with damages, coverage, and filing deadlines. Preserve available evidence promptly, but do not assume that investigating fault extends the time to act. Article 3493.1 is part of the deadline analysis for covered negligence claims; event dates, government defendants, minors, and other special circumstances may require different treatment.
Sources checked: September 29, 2026. Last reviewed: September 28, 2026.