Western States Law Library › Oregon › Guide 17
Comparative Fault
Oregon does not require an injured person to be completely free from fault. A claimant can recover when the claimant's negligence is not greater than the combined fault properly attributed to the other persons in the case. The claimant's damages are reduced by the claimant's own percentage—but once claimant fault exceeds the statutory threshold, recovery is barred.
Oregon uses modified comparative negligence
Fault is not all-or-nothing. Oregon first determines the claimant's complete damages, then compares the relative fault of the legally appropriate persons.
The Oregon fault threshold in four numbers
No comparative-fault reduction.
Claimant generally receives 75% of otherwise recoverable damages.
Claimant may still recover 50%.
Recovery barred under ORS 31.600.
Start with full damages—then apply the claimant's percentage
| Example | Fault | $200,000 total damages |
|---|---|---|
| No claimant fault | Claimant 0% · Defendant 100% | $200,000 potentially recoverable. |
| Partial claimant fault | Claimant 25% · Defendant 75% | $150,000 potentially recoverable. |
| Equal fault | Claimant 50% · Defendant 50% | $100,000 potentially recoverable. |
| Claimant majority fault | Claimant 51% · Defendant 49% | Recovery barred by ORS 31.600. |
Oregon does not compare everyone who might have touched the event
ORS 31.600 defines which persons belong in the comparative-fault calculation.
Their actionable fault is compared with claimant fault.
Their fault can be included even where the plaintiff did not originally assert a direct claim against them.
Settlement does not automatically remove the settling person's fault from Oregon's statutory comparison.
A defendant who points to someone else has a burden to prove it
The existence of another person or vehicle does not automatically put a percentage on the verdict form.
Comparative negligence is an affirmative defense in Oregon litigation
The defense should be tied to particular claimant conduct rather than a bare assertion that the claimant was “partially at fault.”
Speed, lookout, lane use, following distance, yielding, distraction or another specific act or omission.
Identify Oregon traffic law or the reasonable-care duty allegedly breached.
Negligent conduct unrelated to the crash or injury should not automatically create a comparative-fault percentage.
Multiple defendants are compared together for the claimant threshold
The question is whether claimant fault is greater than the combined fault of the other persons properly included in the comparison.
Oregon generally makes each defendant responsible for that defendant's own percentage
ORS 31.610 replaced ordinary joint liability with a system of several liability for the covered bodily-injury, death and property-damage cases.
Oregon treats comparative fault as a comprehensive allocation system
That structure is why comparative fault, settlements, contribution and collectibility should not be analyzed as isolated questions.
Oregon compares blameworthiness—not percentages of physical causation
A collision can have several factual causes. Comparative fault answers a different question.
Causation establishes whether the actor can be legally responsible for the injury.
Oregon compares the relative departure from the required standard of care.
Oregon separates full damages from fault percentages on the verdict
Oregon law expressly provides that the jury is informed of the legal effect of its comparative-fault answers.
ORS 31.605 directs that the jury not be informed of a settlement made by the claimant concerning the injury or death.
A settling tortfeasor can remain on the fault verdict
A third-party defendant can ultimately owe damages directly to the plaintiff
Oregon's procedural structure can bring another tortfeasor into the case even when the claimant did not originally name that person as a direct defendant.
Oregon has a limited post-judgment procedure for an uncollectible share
Several liability can leave part of a judgment difficult to collect. ORS 31.610 contains a specific reallocation procedure.
This is an advanced post-judgment collection mechanism, not the method initially used to calculate comparative negligence.
Immune and time-barred persons require special treatment
ORS 31.600 generally excludes a nonsettling person who is immune from liability to the claimant.
A nonsettling person outside the court's jurisdiction generally is excluded by the statute.
ORS 31.600 generally excludes a nonsettling person against whom the claim has become barred by limitations or ultimate repose.
Intentional misconduct does not fit mechanically into negligence percentages
Cases mixing negligence and intentional tort theories therefore require claim-specific analysis rather than simply assigning everyone a percentage.
Oregon abolished implied assumption of risk
A defendant therefore should not avoid comparative-fault principles merely by relabeling ordinary claimant negligence as an implied acceptance of danger.
A driver's fault is not automatically a passenger's fault
Every claimant's conduct must be evaluated separately.
Oregon gives seat-belt nonuse its own damages rule
An uninsured or impaired plaintiff can face a different Oregon damages statute
ORS 31.715 is important in automobile cases but should not be confused with ORS 31.600 comparative negligence.
Subject to statutory exceptions, ORS 31.715 can bar noneconomic damages where the plaintiff was violating Oregon's motor-vehicle financial-responsibility requirement.
The statute similarly addresses a plaintiff violating ORS 813.010 when the injury-producing act or omission occurred.
ORS 31.715 contains important exceptions
Do not assume that uninsured status or DUII automatically resolves the noneconomic-damages question.
The statute contains an exception where the defendant was also violating specified insurance or DUII requirements.
ORS 31.715 identifies specified defendant conduct that prevents the limitation from applying.
Oregon provides a specified exception for some plaintiffs whose auto insurance recently lapsed.
An insurer's percentage is a position—not a verdict
Insurance companies routinely make early percentage allocations before all crash evidence has been obtained.
Comparative fault can arise differently in different crash configurations
Following distance, lookout, abrupt lane movement, visibility, vehicle condition and multiple impacts can matter.
Right of way, light phase, speed, sight distance, turns, witnesses and video often control the analysis.
Oregon's comparative-fault and several-liability statutes are built to allocate fault among multiple legally responsible persons.
Comparative fault is only as reliable as the crash evidence
| Evidence | Comparative-fault value |
|---|---|
| Scene photographs | Lanes, visibility, road geometry, debris, skid marks and final positions. |
| Vehicle damage | Impact direction, overlap, collision sequence and relative positioning. |
| Video | Traffic signal, speed, lane movement, braking and timing. |
| Event data | Speed, braking, throttle, restraint use and other available pre-impact data. |
| Witnesses | Signal phase, lane position, speed, lookout and collision sequence. |
| Traffic-signal data | Timing and sequencing in disputed intersection cases. |
| Cell / digital records | Potential distraction evidence where legally obtainable and factually relevant. |
| Reconstruction | Technical analysis where ordinary observations cannot reliably resolve the collision sequence. |
Oregon comparative-fault audit
Drivers, employers, owners, businesses, public bodies and others.
Do not infer claimant negligence simply because the crash involved more than one moving vehicle.
Speed, lookout, yield, signal, lane, following distance or another specific conduct.
Scene, video, vehicles, witnesses, digital data and records.
Fault percentages come after determining whether negligent conduct legally caused the injury.
Apply ORS 31.600 to defendants, third parties, settling persons, immune persons and time-barred persons.
Settling tortfeasors can remain in the comparative-fault calculation.
Apply Lasley—not a mechanical percentage of physical causation.
50% claimant fault permits recovery; more than 50% bars it.
Apply ORS 31.610 after the percentages and total damages are known.
Seat-belt mitigation and ORS 31.715 are not ordinary comparative- fault percentages.
Apply the legally supported fault percentages before determining liability limits, excess exposure and potential UIM.
Important Oregon comparative-fault authorities
Demonstrates Oregon's 50-percent rule: plaintiff assigned exactly 50% fault recovered one-half of the stipulated damages.
Important authority distinguishing comparative fault from a system that merely apportions damages according to comparative physical causation.
Explains that comparative fault compares the relative blameworthiness of negligent actors and distinguishes that inquiry from causation.
Describes ORS 31.600, 31.605 and 31.610 as Oregon's comprehensive system for fault allocation and several liability.
Reviews Oregon's transition from contributory negligence to comparative negligence and reiterates that claimant negligence reduces rather than bars damages unless the statutory threshold is exceeded.
Reaffirms that Oregon apportions damages through comparative fault, not comparative causation.
Recent explanation distinguishing factual cause, legal scope of liability and comparative fault.
Holds that intentional misconduct is not ordinary fault subject to apportionment under Oregon's comparative-fault statutes.
Primary Oregon sources for Guide 17
Comparative negligence, special verdicts, several liability, seat-belt mitigation and automobile noneconomic-damages provisions.
Read ORS Chapter 31 →ORCP 19 B identifies comparative or contributory negligence as an affirmative defense.
Read Oregon Rules of Civil Procedure →Research index to Oregon appellate cases construing comparative fault, several liability and seat-belt mitigation.
Review Chapter 31 Annotations →The Legislature explains how to combine the 2025 Edition with 2025 special-session and 2026 Oregon Laws for current-law research.
Check Current ORS Instructions →Oregon Supreme Court authority distinguishing comparative fault from comparative causation.
Read Lasley →Oregon Supreme Court explanation of the modern comparative-fault and several-liability system.
Read Eclectic Investment →Guide 18 turns the fault rules into an evidence workflow: scene, vehicles, witnesses, video, event data, records and reconstruction.
Continue to Guide 18 →Do not negotiate from a fault percentage until the evidence supports it.
Oregon permits recovery through 50 percent claimant fault and bars recovery only when claimant fault is greater than the combined fault properly compared under ORS 31.600. Identify every responsible actor, preserve the crash evidence, establish causation and determine who may legally appear in the fault comparison. Then compare relative blameworthiness and apply Oregon's several-liability rules. Keep seat-belt mitigation, insurance status, DUII rules, settlements and collectibility separate from the core comparative-fault calculation.