Quick answer. For the covered ordinary negligence claims, Rhode Island reduces damages by the injured person’s share of negligence without a percentage cutoff. Massachusetts also bars recovery when that share exceeds the combined negligence of the people against whom recovery is sought. R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 (2026) · Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85
An insurance adjuster says you share responsibility for a collision. That statement can affect the claim, but it is not enough to tell you whether recovery is possible or how much fault should be assigned. Rhode Island and Massachusetts use different comparative-negligence rules.
The comparison below concerns ordinary negligence claims and assumes the law of the named state applies. A collision involving people, vehicles, or events in more than one state may require a separate review of which state's law governs.
Massachusetts has a threshold as well as a reduction
Massachusetts permits recovery when the injured person's negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of the people against whom recovery is sought. Allowed damages are reduced by the injured person's percentage. In a two-party example, 50 percent fault permits a reduced recovery; 51 percent bars recovery under this rule. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85
With $100,000 in proven damages and a 50–50 allocation, the Massachusetts calculation leaves $50,000. With the injured driver assigned 60 percent and the other driver 40 percent, this Massachusetts rule bars recovery. These hypothetical calculations illustrate the legal difference; they do not predict an insurer's offer or a court's allocation.
When more than one defendant is involved, Massachusetts compares the plaintiff's negligence with the total negligence of the persons against whom recovery is sought. Looking only at one defendant's percentage can therefore give the wrong impression. Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 231, § 85
| Claimant negligence | Rhode Island | Massachusetts |
|---|---|---|
| 50% with one defendant 50% | Proportional reduction | Proportional reduction; equal fault does not trigger the bar |
| 60% with one defendant 40% | Proportional reduction | Recovery barred under the compared rule |
The percentage needs evidence
Start with the disputed event. Was the disagreement about a turn, a lane change, a traffic signal, speed, visibility, or the opportunity to avoid the collision? Identify the factual question before accepting a percentage proposed in a letter or phone call.
Useful records can include scene and vehicle photographs, available video, witness contact information, the crash report, and correspondence explaining an insurer's position. Keep the original files where possible. A short timeline should distinguish what you personally saw from what someone told you afterward.
Preserve information that appears unfavorable as well as information that supports your account. A complete record helps counsel assess the dispute and address weaknesses directly. Tell counsel promptly if video or another record may be overwritten.
Fault is only part of the recovery calculation
These examples assume total damages have already been proved. They do not determine the value of treatment, time away from work, or other claimed losses. They also do not show the amount a client would receive after any applicable fees, expenses, liens, insurance limits, or other adjustments.
For an initial review, bring the insurer's written position, the available collision evidence, treatment records, and any papers showing a deadline. You do not need to settle the fault dispute yourself before contacting a lawyer.
Read our personal injury guide and auto accident guide, or request a consultation about the disputed allocation.
This article provides general information. The applicable law and the documents in an individual matter control. Contacting the firm does not by itself create an attorney-client relationship.