One of the arguments for modified comparative-negligence law is that it’s an attempt to make blame in an accident more fair, because at some point a person is responsible for their own harm, according to Nora Freeman Engstrom, professor of law at Stanford University.

“The counterargument [to a modified comparative-negligence system] is that any strict threshold is arbitrary and creates what we call a knife-edge problem: A plaintiff who is 50.1% at fault walks away empty-handed, but a plaintiff who is 49.9% at fault might pocket a substantial recovery,” she says.

“The question becomes what a ‘reasonable driver’ should have done in the same or similar circumstances. Since a reasonable driver slows down in the face of perilous road conditions or inclement weather, failing to adjust one’s behavior when confronting a hazard might actually count against the driver,” Engstrom says.