Florida Comparative Fault Laws

Comparative fault is the legal framework Florida uses to assign responsibility when more than one party contributes to an accident. Under Florida Statute § 768.81, as amended by House Bill 837 in 2023, your compensation is reduced by your percentage of fault — and if you are found more than 50 percent at fault, you are barred from recovering anything at all. The lawyers at Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada have represented accident victims across Florida including Miami-Dade, Broward, and Collier Counties since 1976, and our attorneys understand how to counter the fault-shifting strategies that insurance companies rely on to reduce or eliminate injury claims under this law.

If you were injured in an accident and the other side is blaming you for part of what happened, the attorneys at Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada can evaluate your personal injury case at no cost and explain how Florida’s comparative fault rule affects your right to compensation.

Florida’s comparative fault system touches virtually every injury claim filed in the state — car accidents, truck crashes, slip-and-fall cases, construction injuries, product liability cases, and wrongful death actions. The 2023 changes made fault percentages far more consequential than they were before. A few percentage points can mean the difference between a significant recovery and no recovery at all, which is why insurance carriers now invest more resources into pushing fault onto injured people than at any point in the state’s history.

Florida follows a modified comparative negligence standard. Under § 768.81(6), added by HB 837 and effective March 24, 2023, any party found to be greater than 50 percent at fault for their own injuries cannot recover any damages. If your fault is 50 percent or less, your compensation is reduced proportionally.

Here is how the math works in practice. Suppose you are injured in a car accident on I-95 and a jury determines your total damages are $200,000. The jury also finds that you were 25 percent at fault for speeding and the other driver was 75 percent at fault for running a red light. Your recovery is reduced by your 25 percent share — so you would receive $150,000. But if the jury assigned you 51 percent of the fault, you would receive nothing, regardless of the severity of your injuries.

Comparative fault is the legal principle that assigns a percentage of responsibility to each party involved in an accident and adjusts the injured person’s compensation accordingly. Under Florida’s current law, that adjustment becomes a complete bar to recovery once the injured person’s share of fault exceeds 50 percent.

This is a significant change from the system Florida used for the previous 50 years. Before HB 837, Florida followed a pure comparative negligence standard, which allowed an injured person to recover damages even if they were 99 percent at fault — their recovery was just reduced by their fault percentage. The 2023 reform eliminated that protection and replaced it with the 51 percent threshold that now controls every negligence case filed in the state, with one major exception discussed below.

Florida Statute § 768.81(6) explicitly carves out medical negligence claims from the 51 percent bar. Actions for personal injury or wrongful death arising out of medical malpractice — whether brought in contract or tort — remain subject to pure comparative negligence. This means a patient can still recover damages even if they are found to be more than 50 percent at fault, though their recovery will be reduced by their percentage of responsibility.

This exception reflects the legislature’s recognition that the doctor-patient relationship creates unique dynamics that make it difficult for patients to assess their own contribution to a medical outcome. If your case involves medical malpractice, the pure comparative fault standard still applies.

The shift to modified comparative negligence has fundamentally changed the way insurance companies handle injury claims in Florida. Before HB 837, an insurer’s comparative fault argument could reduce a payout, but it could not eliminate it entirely. Now, pushing the injured person’s fault percentage above 50 percent wipes out the claim completely. That gives insurers a powerful incentive to build the strongest possible case that you contributed to your own injuries.

In car accident cases, this means adjusters scrutinize police reports for any mention of speed, distraction, seatbelt use, or lane positioning that could support a shared-fault argument. In premises liability cases, property owners argue that you should have seen the hazard, were wearing inappropriate footwear, or were looking at your phone. In product liability cases, manufacturers claim the product was misused. The strategy is the same in every case type: shift enough blame to the injured person to cross the 51 percent line.

Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada has recovered more than $220 million for accident victims throughout South Florida. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes, but our decades of handling contested liability cases have given us a clear understanding of how defense teams construct fault arguments and how to dismantle them with strong evidence. The attorneys at our firm bring firsthand knowledge of how the other side approaches these cases.

Call (877) 448-8585 to talk with one of our attorneys about how comparative fault applies to your case. The consultation is free, and we do not charge fees unless and until we recover compensation for you.

Florida abolished joint and several liability in negligence cases in 2006. Under § 768.81(3), the court enters judgment against each defendant based solely on that defendant’s individual percentage of fault. A defendant who is 20 percent at fault pays 20 percent of the damages — no more.

This matters because defendants in Florida can also allocate fault to nonparties who are not named in the lawsuit. These are known as “Fabre defendants,” named after the Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Fabre v. Marin, 623 So.2d 1182 (Fla. 1993). A defendant can point the finger at a person or company that settled before trial, went bankrupt, or is immune from suit (such as an employer protected by workers’ compensation immunity) and ask the jury to assign that nonparty a share of fault. Every percentage point assigned to a Fabre defendant reduces the named defendant’s liability — and can push the plaintiff’s own share closer to the 51 percent bar.

To add a nonparty to the verdict form, the defendant must plead the nonparty’s fault as an affirmative defense and prove that fault at trial by a preponderance of the evidence. This is not automatic — it requires actual proof — but it is a tactic that defendants and insurers use routinely in South Florida courtrooms, including in the Eleventh Judicial Circuit (Miami-Dade) and the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit (Broward).

The modified comparative fault rule under § 768.81 applies broadly to all negligence actions in Florida, including but not limited to car accidents, truck accidents, motorcycle crashes, pedestrian and bicycle accidents, slip-and-fall and premises liability claims, construction accidents, product liability and defective product cases, negligent security claims, and wrongful death actions. The only categories excluded from the statute are claims for economic damages from pollution, claims based on intentional torts, and causes of action governed by specific chapters of the Florida Statutes that preserve joint and several liability (chapters 403, 498, 517, 542, and 895). Medical malpractice claims, as noted above, fall under pure comparative negligence rather than the modified standard.

HB 837 also reduced the statute of limitations for negligence claims from four years to two years. Under Florida Statute § 95.11, any negligence action arising from an incident that occurred after March 24, 2023, must be filed within two years of the date of the injury.

This shorter deadline interacts with comparative fault in an important way. Because contested fault cases require more investigation, more evidence gathering, and more expert analysis than clear-liability cases, the two-year window creates real pressure to begin the legal process early. Waiting too long to consult an attorney risks losing access to evidence — surveillance footage, witness memories, vehicle data — that could be critical to defending against a comparative fault argument.

If you have been injured in an accident in South Florida, the comparative fault rule makes early action and strong evidence more important than ever. What you do in the first days and weeks after an accident can directly affect how much fault the other side is able to assign to you.

Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada works with accident reconstruction professionals, medical experts, and investigators to build a factual record that accurately reflects what happened and who is responsible. If an insurance company is trying to shift blame onto you, we have the resources and experience to push back.

To talk with one of our South Florida experienced personal injury attorneys about your case, call Friedman Rodman Frank & Estrada at (877) 448-8585 or contact us online. We are available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. All consultations are free, and you pay nothing unless and until we win.