Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-5 (2026)
Effect of contributory fault
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 5. In an action based on fault, any 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 provided in section 6 of this chapter.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-33-3.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 28
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: Hammock v. Red Gold, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003).
Hammock v. Red Gold, Inc., 784 N.E.2d 495 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “While we agree that no statutory duty existed, the plain language of the Indiana Comparative Fault Act, Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5 (Burns Code Ed. Repl.”
Pfenning v. Lineman, 947 N.E.2d 392 (Ind. 2011). “See Ind.Code §§ 34-51-2-5, -6. Such fault includes “any act or omission that is negli *400 gent, willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of others.”
Gyuriak v. Millice, 775 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5. Section 6 of the Act states that in an action brought against one defendant or multiple defendants who may be treated as a single party, the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant's contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose…”
Funston v. Sch. Town of Munster, 849 N.E.2d 595 (Ind. 2006). “Code § 34-51-2-2, and thus the common law defense of contributory negligence remains applicable for governmental defendants, such as the school in this case.”
Indiana Dep't of Ins. v. Everhart, 960 N.E.2d 129 (Ind. 2012). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5 (2008). Instead, the Act requires a jury to allocate a percentage of responsibility for the plaintiffs injuries to each defendant and any nonparty who contributed to those injuries, and each defendant need only pay his proportional share.”
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright, 719 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5. The common law contributory negligence defense is partially retained in that a plaintiff who is more than 50% at fault is precluded from recovery.”
Katrina Murray & Aquila F. Flynn, as Co-Pers. Representatives of the Est. of Jaylan T.R. Murray v. Indianapolis Pub. Schs. & Arlington Cmty. High Sch., 128 N.E.3d 450 (Ind. 2019). “§ 34-51-2-5. This tort claim was filed against a public school and a public school system which are both government entities.”
M.S.D. of Martinsville v. Jackson, 9 N.E.3d 230 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). “denied (quoting Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5). But “the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant’s contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant’s damages.”
McSwane v. Bloomington Hosp. & Healthcare Sys., 882 N.E.2d 244 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5, -6; Funston v. School Town of Munster, 849 N.”
Hopper v. Carey, 716 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “” Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5. In addition, “the claimant is barred from recovery if the claimant’s contributory fault is greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant’s damages.”
Kristoff v. Glasson, 778 N.E.2d 465 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-5 (2002). For example, mitigation of damages is a defense available to defendants after having been found negligent.”
Angel Shores Mobile Home Park, Inc. v. John Crays & Megan Crays, 78 N.E.3d 718 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). “” Ind. Code § 34-51-2-5 (emphasis added). “[Cjompensatory damages for an injury” are not the same as litigation expenses, and thus allocation based upon the comparative fault of non-parties is not contemplated by the language of Indiana Code § 34-52-1-5.”
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.