Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1 (2026)
Applicability of chapter
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 1. (a) This chapter governs any action based on fault that is brought to recover damages for injury or death to a person or harm to property, except as provided in subsection (b).
(b) This chapter does not apply to an action:
(1) brought against a qualified health care provider under IC 16-9.5 (before its repeal), IC 27-12 (before its repeal), or IC 34-18 for medical malpractice; or
(2) that accrued before January 1, 1985.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-33-1 part.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 68
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1998–2026 · leading case: Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., 864 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., 864 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “Comparative Fault Act Palmer first argues that the Comparative Fault Act, Indiana Code § 34-51-2-1 et seq. (Burns Code Ed.”
McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009). “The legislature specifically excluded from this alteration actions against qualified healthcare providers for medical negligence, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1(b)(1) (2008), leaving in place contributory negligence for this and certain other claims.”
Cavens v. Zaberdac, 849 N.E.2d 526 (Ind. 2006). “See Ind.Code 34-51-2-1. The contributory negligence defense has been applied in medical malpractice cases.”
Gyuriak v. Millice, 775 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Ind.Code §§ 34-51-2-1 to 19. Pursuant to the Act: [A]ny contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionately the amount awarded as compensatory damages for an injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery except as…”
Peter v. Ford Motor Co., 913 N.E.2d 311 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). “(emphasis in original); see Ind.Code §§ 34-51-2-1 et seq. (Indiana's Comparative Fault Act, apportioning liability among those whose fault caused or contributed to the loss in proportion to their percentages of "fault").”
Robertson v. B.O. ex rel. Ort, 977 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. 2012). “Code §§ 34-18-14-1 to -5 (2008), and retention of the contributory negligence defense, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1 (2008). Perhaps in an effort to balance this sweeping reform, the legislature chose to provide plaintiffs with the benefit of final and established liability when the…”
Mendenhall v. Skinner & Broadbent Co., 728 N.E.2d 140 (Ind. 2000). “The Comparative Fault Act The Comparative Fault Act, Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1 , [3] applies generally to damages actions based in fault that accrued on or after January 1, 1985.”
Johnson v. Scandia Assocs., Inc., 717 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 1999). “See Ind. Code Ann. §§ 34-51-2-1 , -19 (West Supp.”
Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2003). “" I.C. § 34-51-2-1(a); 34-6-2-45(b). "The term also includes unreasonable assumption of risk not constituting an enforceable express consent, incurred risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages.”
David L. Kimbrough v. Ramona F. Anderson, 55 N.E.3d 325 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “” Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1. In an action based on fault that is brought against one defendant, the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant’s contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons who fault proximately contributed to the claimant’s damages.”
Fall v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 33 F. Supp. 2d 729 (N.D. Ind. 1998). “However, Cohen argues that the statute should be given retroactive effect because it is procedural in nature, and not substantive, and that its retroactive effect can also be implied by comparing it to Ind.”
Cahoon v. Cummings, 734 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2000). “See Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1 to 19 (1998). In sum, we agree with Judge Sullivan’s dissent, and hold that upon a showing of causation under Mayhue , damages are proportional to the increased risk attributable to the defendant’s negligent act or omission.”
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1(a) — 4 cases
Smith v. Baxter, 796 N.E.2d 242 (Ind. 2003). “" I.C. § 34-51-2-1(a); 34-6-2-45(b). "The term also includes unreasonable assumption of risk not constituting an enforceable express consent, incurred risk, and unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages.”
Dennerline v. Atterholt, 886 N.E.2d 582 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).
Kathryn Davidson v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2023).
Donna Wagner v. Mark Christopher Perry (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1(b) — 4 cases
Hockema v. J.S. Ex Rel. Secrest, 832 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Foster v. Owens, 844 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
Cavens v. Zaberdac, 820 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
Kathryn Davidson v. State of Indiana (Ind. 2023).
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1(b)(1) — 3 cases
McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 916 N.E.2d 906 (Ind. 2009). “The legislature specifically excluded from this alteration actions against qualified healthcare providers for medical negligence, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-1(b)(1) (2008), leaving in place contributory negligence for this and certain other claims.”
Indiana Dep't of Ins., Indiana Patients Comp. Fund v. Everhart, 939 N.E.2d 1106 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010).
Donna Wagner v. Mark Christopher Perry (Ind. Ct. App. 2025).
— Ind. Code § 34-51-2-1(b)(2) — 1 case
Fall v. Indiana Univ. Bd. of Trs., 33 F. Supp. 2d 729 (N.D. Ind. 1998). “However, Cohen argues that the statute should be given retroactive effect because it is procedural in nature, and not substantive, and that its retroactive effect can also be implied by comparing it to Ind.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.