Indiana Code
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6 (2026)
Barring of recovery; degree of contributory fault
✓ current as of May 2026
Sec. 6. (a) In an action based on fault that is brought against:
(1) one (1) defendant; or
(2) two (2) or more 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 fault proximately contributed to the claimant's damages.
(b) In an action based on fault that is brought against two (2) or more defendants, 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.
[Pre-1998 Recodification Citation: 34-4-33-4.]
As added by P.L.1-1998, SEC.47.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 40
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1999–2025 · leading case: St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Poland, 828 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005).
St. Margaret Mercy Healthcare Centers, Inc. v. Poland, 828 N.E.2d 396 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “toward the person. 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.”
Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “, Indiana Code Section 34-51-2-6, provides a complete defense to Appellees if Carl's contributory fault is "greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant's damages.”
Penn Harris Madison Sch. Corp. v. Howard, 861 N.E.2d 1190 (Ind. 2007). “1985) (now I.C. § 34-51-2-6 (2004)). And the Legislature also specified that the provisions of the new comparative fault statute would not apply to governmental entities.”
Speedway SuperAmerica, LLC v. Holmes, 885 N.E.2d 1265 (Ind. 2008). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6 (2004). Moreover, the trial court’s order prohibiting “any testimony or inference that the stain is, in fact, diesel fuel” was of no help to Speedway.”
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6(b). If we were to ignore the unallocated fault resulting from our decision today and literally apply only this provision, it would appear to require a final judgment in favor of the defendant Ford, whose 31% fault allocation was exceeded by the 33%…”
Gyuriak v. Millice, 775 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6. "Fault" for purposes of the Act, is defined as: any act or omission that is negligent, willful, wanton, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of others.”
Hockema v. J.S. Ex Rel. Secrest, 832 N.E.2d 537 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005). “See Ind.Code §§ 34-51-2-6; 34-51-2-7; 34-52-2-14.”
John Kader v. State of Indiana, Dep't of Corr., & The Geo Grp., Inc., 1 N.E.3d 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). “I.C. § 34-51-2-6. However, where the plaintiff pursues a claim of negligence against an alleged tortfeasor under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, the comparative negligence scheme set forth by the Indiana Comparative Fault Act does not apply.”
Palmer v. Comprehensive Neurologic Servs., P.C., 864 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007). “See I.C. § 34-51-2-6 (Bums Code Ed. Repl.1998).”
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Bank One, 879 N.E.2d 1086 (Ind. 2008). “Section 405 contains no provision comparable to Indiana's Comparative Fault statute, I.C. § 34-51-2-6, which bars recovery by a plaintiff who is greater than fifty percent at fault.”
Wohlwend v. Edwards, 796 N.E.2d 781 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003). “Of course pursuant to Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6 (Burns Code Ed. Rep1.”
Kmart Corp. v. Englebright, 719 N.E.2d 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). “Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6. The proportional allocation of fault is the means by which the Act’s objectives are reached, not the ends to which it aspires.”
Ind. Code § 34-51-2-6(b): 2 cases
Coffman v. PSI Energy, Inc., 815 N.E.2d 522 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). “, Indiana Code Section 34-51-2-6, provides a complete defense to Appellees if Carl's contributory fault is "greater than the fault of all persons whose fault proximately contributed to the claimant's damages.”
TRW Veh. Saf. Sys., Inc. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010). “" Ind.Code § 34-51-2-6(b). If we were to ignore the unallocated fault resulting from our decision today and literally apply only this provision, it would appear to require a final judgment in favor of the defendant Ford, whose 31% fault allocation was exceeded by the 33%…”
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.