In a move that could significantly change the allocation of damages in auto accident litigation, Louisiana's House Bill 431 restricts recovery in negligence cases by plaintiffs who are more than 50% at fault. HB 431 bars any plaintiff deemed 51% or more responsible for a motor vehicle accident from recovering any damages, even for the portion attributable to the fault of other parties.

HB 431 further provides that a case where comparative fault is an issue submitted to the jury, the jury must be advised of the effect of finding the plaintiff 51% or more at fault.

The law goes into effect January 1, 2026.

Under Louisiana's current pure comparative fault system, a plaintiff who is 51% at fault can still recover 49% of their damages. For example, suppose a driver is injured in a car accident and incurs $60,000 in total damages. After trial, the jury finds that the injured driver was 55% at fault, and the other driver was 45% at fault. Under the current pure comparative fault rule, the injured driver is still entitled to recover damages, reduced by their percentage of fault. Thus, in that scenario, under the current comparative fault rule, the plaintiff would recover $27,000 in damages ($60,000 x 45%= $27,000).

Under the same scenario with the new law in place the outcome would be entirely different. Since the plaintiff was more than 50% at fault, that plaintiff would be barred from any recovery. HB 431 aligns Louisiana with the majority of states that bar recovery when a plaintiff's fault meets or exceeds 51%.

Practical Impact

For defense attorneys representing drivers, vehicle owners, or insurers in auto litigation, at first glance, HB 431 appears to create a powerful new tool. The bill raises the stakes for plaintiffs by making comparative fault not merely a way to reduce damages, but potentially could be a complete bar to recovery. This change may effect both litigation posture and settlement strategy. If a defendant can prove the plaintiff was slightly more at fault, the entire claim may be extinguished. The viability of this defense may shift negotiation dynamics and offer leverage that did not exist under the current standard.

However, in practice, the portion of HB 431 providing that the jury will be advised of the effect of finding the plaintiff 51% or more at fault may substantially reduce its effectiveness as jurors may be less likely to find a plaintiff to be more than 50% at fault if they know such a finding will result in a complete bar to Plaintiff's recovery.

As a practical matter, HB 431 may be most useful by defense counsel and adjusters in negotiating settlement. This bill gives defense counsel and adjusters a stronger position in mediation and settlement. Insurers can more credibly refuse payment or offer significantly reduced settlement amounts in cases where fault allocation is murky, knowing that a favorable jury verdict could result in no payment obligation at all.

Further, from a claims triage and litigation management perspective, HB 431 may streamline claims handling by discouraging the pursuit of highly disputed claims, thereby reducing administrative and litigation costs.

Conclusion: A Shift in Favor of the Defense

Louisiana HB 431 represents a substantial shift in the state's comparative fault framework, moving from a pure comparative model to a modified version that cuts off recovery at 51% fault. Defense attorneys gain a powerful trial and settlement negotiation strategy, insurers reduce potential exposure, and claims professionals and risk managers may find new opportunities to control costs and leverage proactive safety policies.

HB 431 sends a strong message that responsibility matters. For those defending against auto claims in Louisiana, the bill offers both practical advantages and a philosophical realignment toward fairness in liability.

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy.