Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tort Reform Comparative Fault topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs shift to modified comparative-fault standard with 51% bar in auto cases
Summary
The committee approved Representative Chenover's bill converting Louisiana from pure comparative fault to a modified comparative-fault standard with a 51% bar for injury claims (as amended). Supporters said the move aligns Louisiana with many states; opponents called it unfair to injured parties and said it would not guarantee lower premiums.
House Bill 4 31, introduced by Representative Shonover Chenover, was reported with amendments by the Senate Committee on Judiciary A on May 13, 2025. The bill would replace Louisiana's pure comparative-fault rule with a modified comparative-fault standard that bars recovery if a plaintiff's own negligence equals or exceeds 51 percent.
"If the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering injury, death, or loss is equal to or greater than 51 percent, then the person shall not be entitled to recover damages," the author told the committee when offering an amendment clarifying jury instruction language.
Supporters argued the change would bring Louisiana closer to the majority of states and help reduce claim frequency that supporters say contributes to high auto-insurance costs. Will Green of the Louisiana Association of Business and Industry said many states with stronger insurance markets use forms of modified comparative fault and that the change is part of a broader set of legal reforms intended to stabilize the market.
Opponents described the bill as a substantial step away from a long-established civil-law principle. Brian Katz of the Louisiana Association for Justice said the state's current law which traces back to Civil Code provisions such as article 2315 already balances responsibility between parties. Katz told the committee the proposed bar is "unfair" to injured plaintiffs and would not meaningfully reduce claim frequency for the most-serious injuries.
Committee debate centered on fairness and practical effects: senators asked whether a defendant who is 51 percent at fault would pay only that portion or be required to cover larger shares; counsel and witnesses explained various civil-law approaches used in other states, including joint-and-several liability regimes and modified joint-and-several systems. The author and supporters said the bill applies to automobile injury claims and that jury instructions would be amended to make the legal effect clear.
The committee adopted an amendment (16-05) to clarify jury instruction language and then voted to report HB 4 31 with amendments. Supporters said the measure is one part of a wider insurance-reform effort; opponents urged caution and said the bill risks denying recovery to seriously injured people.
