STATE LAW – MINNESOTA LIBRARY – GUIDE 17
Minnesota Comparative Fault & Crash Liability
Minnesota uses a modified, person-specific comparative-fault system. Recovery is allowed when the claimant’s fault is not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought, with damages reduced proportionally.
Compare the claimant with the person from whom recovery is sought
Minn. Stat. § 604.01, subd. 1, permits recovery when the claimant’s fault is not greater than the fault of the person against whom recovery is sought. Any allowed damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant’s fault. In a simplified one-claimant, one-defendant comparison, 50% claimant fault against 50% defendant fault does not trigger the bar; 51% against 49% does. With $100,000 in otherwise recoverable damages and a permitted 50% claimant allocation, the proportional reduction leaves $50,000 before other applicable adjustments. This illustration does not determine the value or result of an actual claim.
Apply defendant allocation and statutory exceptions separately
Minn. Stat. § 604.02, subd. 1, generally allocates an award in proportion to each severally liable person’s fault. Its joint-and-several exceptions cover a person whose fault exceeds 50%, persons acting in a common scheme or plan that causes injury, an intentional tortfeasor, and liability under the environmental or public-health laws and programs specified in the statute. The section states that it applies to claims arising from events on or after August 1, 2003. Identify the applicable version, actors and exceptions before calculating who may owe an award; the claimant’s recovery threshold and defendant allocation are separate questions.
Read Staab as a specific reallocation decision
In Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 853 N.W.2d 713 (Minn. 2014), the Minnesota Supreme Court interpreted the 2012 version of § 604.02. The majority held that the subdivision 2 reallocation procedure could not require a party severally liable under subdivision 1 to pay more than its equitable share of the total damages award. The court reversed the court of appeals and remanded. See the official opinion’s syllabus on PDF page 2 and holding and disposition on pages 16–17. The dissent begins on page 18. This summary describes the decision as issued; later decisions, changes in law and the facts of a particular case require further review.
Keep a separate record of damages, fault and collection issues
Preserve scene and vehicle photographs, video, witness contacts, event-data-recorder and telematics information, and roadway or signal records. For each actor, record the alleged conduct, supporting and contrary evidence, and its causal connection to the injury. Keep the damages figure before reduction, the proposed fault shares, and any settlement or collection adjustment in separate entries. An insurer’s initial position is not a judicial fault finding. This guide does not resolve Minnesota’s separate no-fault tort threshold, release terms, reimbursement claims or every multi-party issue.
Official sources and review scope
- Minn. Stat. § 604.01 — claimant-fault threshold and reduction
- Minn. Stat. § 604.02 — allocation and reallocation
- Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud — Supreme Court opinion, September 10, 2014 (PDF)
Sources checked October 15, 2026. The Revisor pages identify the 2025 Minnesota Statutes. The official 2014 Staab opinion was checked for its holding as issued. This review does not certify every later enactment, subsequent case treatment, historical version or claim-specific issue.
Match the applicable legal comparison to evidence of each person’s conduct and causation. Review the relevant statutory version and later case treatment before relying on an allocation or collection result.