HB 431 revises Louisiana’s comparative fault rules and creates a modified comparative fault system for damages actions. Under the bill, fault must be allocated among all persons who contributed to an injury, death, or loss, including nonparties, insolvent persons, immune persons, and persons whose identities are unknown or not reasonably ascertainable. A claimant’s damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant’s own fault, but if the claimant is found to be 51% or more at fault, the claimant is barred from recovering damages.
The bill also adds a new provision directing courts to instruct juries on the effect of the comparative fault article when the issue is submitted to the jury. The act takes effect on January 1, 2026, and will apply to Louisiana civil liability and damages litigation going forward, changing how fault is assessed and how recoveries are calculated in personal injury, wrongful death, and other loss claims.
Impact
HB 431 amends Civil Code Article 2323 and adds Article 2323(D), shifting Louisiana from a pure comparative fault approach to a modified comparative fault regime with a 51% bar to recovery. The change affects civil damages cases by requiring allocation of fault to all responsible persons and limiting recovery for plaintiffs whose own negligence equals or exceeds 51%. It also clarifies jury instructions in comparative fault cases and may affect litigation strategy, settlement values, and the handling of claims involving immune or absent tortfeasors.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have received generally favorable support overall, as reflected by its passage in both chambers and concurrence in Senate amendments. The House and Senate votes show clear majorities in favor, though not unanimous, indicating meaningful support but also some opposition. The absence of committee transcript material limits insight into detailed debate, but the voting pattern suggests the measure was broadly accepted as a significant tort reform change.
Contention
The main point of contention is the policy choice to bar recovery when a claimant is 51% or more at fault, which is a major shift from allowing recovery reduced by the claimant’s share of fault. Opponents likely object to the reduced ability of partially negligent plaintiffs to recover damages, while supporters likely view the change as a fairness and tort-reform measure that better aligns recovery with responsibility. Another likely issue is the inclusion of nonparties and immune or unknown persons in the fault allocation, which can affect how liability is distributed among defendants and plaintiffs in civil cases.