Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102 (2026)

Comparative negligence.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 7102. Comparative negligence.

(a) General rule.--In all actions brought to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property, the fact that the plaintiff may have been guilty of contributory negligence shall not bar a recovery by the plaintiff or his legal representative where such negligence was not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant or defendants against whom recovery is sought, but any damages sustained by the plaintiff shall be diminished in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.

(a.1) Recovery against joint defendant; contribution.--

(1) Where recovery is allowed against more than one person, including actions for strict liability, and where liability is attributed to more than one defendant, each defendant shall be liable for that proportion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages in the ratio of the amount of that defendant's liability to the amount of liability attributed to all defendants and other persons to whom liability is apportioned under subsection (a.2).

(2) Except as set forth in paragraph (3), a defendant's liability shall be several and not joint, and the court shall enter a separate and several judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against each defendant for the apportioned amount of that defendant's liability.

(3) A defendant's liability in any of the following actions shall be joint and several, and the court shall enter a joint and several judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the total dollar amount awarded as damages:

(i) Intentional misrepresentation.

(ii) An intentional tort.

(iii) Where the defendant has been held liable for not less than 60% of the total liability apportioned to all parties.

(iv) A release or threatened release of a hazardous substance under section 702 of the act of October 18, 1988 (P.L.756, No.108), known as the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act.

(v) A civil action in which a defendant has violated section 497 of the act of April 12, 1951 (P.L.90, No.21), known as the Liquor Code.

(4) Where a defendant has been held jointly and severally liable under this subsection and discharges by payment more than that defendant's proportionate share of the total liability, that defendant is entitled to recover contribution from defendants who have paid less than their proportionate share. Further, in any case, any defendant may recover from any other person all or a portion of the damages assessed that defendant pursuant to the terms of a contractual agreement.

(a.2) Apportionment of responsibility among certain nonparties and effect.--For purposes of apportioning liability only, the question of liability of any defendant or other person who has entered into a release with the plaintiff with respect to the action and who is not a party shall be transmitted to the trier of fact upon appropriate requests and proofs by any party. A person whose liability may be determined pursuant to this section does not include an employer to the extent that the employer is granted immunity from liability or suit pursuant to the act of June 2, 1915 (P.L.736, No.338), known as the Workers' Compensation Act. An attribution of responsibility to any person or entity as provided in this subsection shall not be admissible or relied upon in any other action or proceeding for any purpose. Nothing in this section shall affect the admissibility or nonadmissibility of evidence regarding releases, settlements, offers to compromise or compromises as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. Nothing in this section shall affect the rules of joinder of parties as set forth in the Pennsylvania Rules of Civil Procedure.

(b) Recovery against joint defendant; contribution.--(Deleted by amendment).

(b.1) Recovery against joint defendant; contribution.--(Unconstitutional).

(b.2) Apportionment of responsibility among certain nonparties and effect.--(Unconstitutional).

(b.3) Off-road vehicle riding.--

(1) Off-road vehicle riding area operators shall have no duty to protect riders from common, frequent, expected and nonnegligent risks inherent to the activity, including collisions with riders or objects.

(2) The doctrine of knowing voluntary assumption of risk shall apply to all actions to recover damages for negligence resulting in death or injury to person or property brought against any off-road vehicle riding area operator.

(3) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed in any way to abolish or modify a cause of action against a potentially responsible party other than an off-road vehicle riding area operator.

(c) Downhill skiing.--

(1) The General Assembly finds that the sport of downhill skiing is practiced by a large number of citizens of this Commonwealth and also attracts to this Commonwealth large numbers of nonresidents significantly contributing to the economy of this Commonwealth. It is recognized that as in some other sports, there are inherent risks in the sport of downhill skiing.

(2) The doctrine of voluntary assumption of risk as it applies to downhill skiing injuries and damages is not modified by subsections (a) and (a.1).

(c.2) Savings provisions.--Nothing in this section shall be construed in any way to create, abolish or modify a cause of action or to limit a party's right to join another potentially responsible party.

(d) Definitions.--As used in this section the following words and phrases shall have the meanings given to them in this subsection:

"Defendant or defendants." Includes impleaded defendants.

"Off-road vehicle." A motorized vehicle that is used off-road for sport or recreation. The term includes snowmobiles, all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles.

"Off-road vehicle riding area." Any area or facility providing recreational activities for off-road vehicles.

"Off-road vehicle riding area operator." A person or organization owning or having operational responsibility for any off-road vehicle riding area. The term includes:

(1) Agencies and political subdivisions of this Commonwealth.

(2) Authorities created by political subdivisions.

(3) Private companies.

"Plaintiff." Includes counter claimants and cross-claimants.

(Apr. 28, 1978, P.L.202, No.53, eff. 60 days; Oct. 5, 1980, P.L.693, No.142, eff. 60 days; Dec. 20, 1982, P.L.1409, No.326, eff. 60 days; June 19, 2002, P.L.394, No.57, eff. 60 days; July 15, 2004, P.L.736, No.87, eff. imd.; June 28, 2011, P.L.78, No.17, eff. imd.)

2011 Amendment. See sections 2 and 3 of Act 17 in the appendix to this title for special provisions relating to construction of law and applicability.

2007 Effectuation of Declaration of Unconstitutionality. The Legislative Reference Bureau effectuated the 2005 unconstitutionality.

2005 Unconstitutionality. Act 57 of 2002 was declared unconstitutional. Deweese v. Weaver, 880 A.2d 54 (Pa. Commonwealth 2005).

2002 Amendment. Section 6 of Act 57 provided that the amendment of section 7102 shall apply to all causes of action that accrue after the effective date of section 6.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 256 cases (25 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010). · cites it 20× “(2) The doctrine of voluntary assumption of the risk as it applies to downhill skiing injuries and damages is not modified by [42 Pa.C.S. § 7102](a) and (b). Thus, the Act explicitly preserved the common law assumption of risk defense as *1186 applied to injuries suffered while…”

Charles v. Giant Eagle Markets, 522 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1987). · cites it 20× “The pertinent language of the comparative negligence statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102, is unquestionably compatible with the result reached today.”

Allen v. Mellinger, 784 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2001). · cites it 19× “The majority resolves several questions relating to the collection or calculation of delay damages involving multiple defendants, who include a Commonwealth party.”

Roverano, W. v. John Crane, Inc., 177 A.3d 892 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). · cites it 15× “Fair Share Act Appellants contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to apply the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1)-(a.2), to this case because the litigation involves exposure to asbestos.”

Carrender v. Fitterer, 469 A.2d 120 (Pa. 1983). · cites it 6× “The court, however, refused appellants' proposed "assumption of risk" charge, reasoning that the defense of assumption of risk as a complete bar to recovery had been wholly merged with the defense of contributory negligence, and that the proposed charge was thus incompatible…”

Moran v. G. & W.H. Corson, Inc., 586 A.2d 416 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1991). · cites it 8× “While appellees correctly assert that Giant Eagle Markets involved the Comparative Negligence Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102, which was not applicable in the instant case, [3] we are not persuaded that the Supreme Court intended to limit the holding of Giant Eagle to only those cases…”

Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 493 A.2d 669 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 4× “[3] The $500,000 verdict was comprised of a $400,000 award on the survival action and a $100,000 award for the wrongful death. Since the Commonwealth had not been timely sued for wrongful death, the lower court vacated the Commonwealth's portion of the $100,000 wrongful death…”

Neal v. Bavarian Motors, Inc., 882 A.2d 1022 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005). · cites it 4× “[2] It bears remarking that this matter was filed and tried prior to the amendments to 42 Pa. C.S. § 7102, which altered the manner in which joint and several liability is assessed against multiple defendants.”

Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis, 485 A.2d 408 (Pa. 1985). · cites it 4× “[6] The Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence statute provides at 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102 as follows: (a) General rule.”

Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 339 (Pa. 2000). · cites it 5× “42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a)-(b). 1 However, two years after enacting the Comparative Negligence Act in 1978, the legislature amended the statute to address more specifically the question of injuries arising from downhill skiing.”

Buschman v. Druck, 590 A.2d 53 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1991). · cites it 8× “[2] 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102. [3] This section reads as follows: § 8541.”

Krentz v. Consol. Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2006). · cites it 3× “42 Pa.C.S. § 7102. 2 . Act of Oct. 16, 1970, P.”

Show all 256 citing cases →

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(a) — 62 cases

Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 2 A.3d 1174 (Pa. 2010). “(2) The doctrine of voluntary assumption of the risk as it applies to downhill skiing injuries and damages is not modified by [42 Pa.C.S. § 7102](a) and (b). Thus, the Act explicitly preserved the common law assumption of risk defense as *1186 applied to injuries suffered while…”

Krentz v. Consol. Rail Corp., 910 A.2d 20 (Pa. 2006). “42 Pa.C.S. § 7102. 2 . Act of Oct. 16, 1970, P.”

Ronald J. Srein & R.J. Srein Corp. v. Frankford Trust Co., N/k/a Key Trust Co., 323 F.3d 214 (3rd Cir. 2003).

Christiansen v. Silfies, 667 A.2d 396 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1995).

Charles v. Giant Eagle Markets, 522 A.2d 1 (Pa. 1987). “The pertinent language of the comparative negligence statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102, is unquestionably compatible with the result reached today.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(a)(b) — 1 case

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(b) — 28 cases

Allen v. Mellinger, 784 A.2d 762 (Pa. 2001). “The majority resolves several questions relating to the collection or calculation of delay damages involving multiple defendants, who include a Commonwealth party.”

Ieropoli v. AC&S CORP., 842 A.2d 919 (Pa. 2004).

Thompson v. City of Philadelphia, 493 A.2d 669 (Pa. 1985). “[3] The $500,000 verdict was comprised of a $400,000 award on the survival action and a $100,000 award for the wrongful death. Since the Commonwealth had not been timely sued for wrongful death, the lower court vacated the Commonwealth's portion of the $100,000 wrongful death…”

Roverano, W. v. John Crane, Inc., 177 A.3d 892 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2017). “Fair Share Act Appellants contend that the trial court erred as a matter of law by refusing to apply the Fair Share Act, 42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a.1)-(a.2), to this case because the litigation involves exposure to asbestos.”

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(c) — 13 cases

Hughes v. Seven Springs Farm, Inc., 762 A.2d 339 (Pa. 2000). “42 Pa.C.S. § 7102(a)-(b). 1 However, two years after enacting the Comparative Negligence Act in 1978, the legislature amended the statute to address more specifically the question of injuries arising from downhill skiing.”

Kotovsky v. Ski Liberty Operating Corp., 603 A.2d 663 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1992).

Vu v. Ski Liberty Operating Corp., 295 F. Supp. 3d 503 (M.D. Penn. 2018).

Matthew Shukoski & Darlene Ritchie v. Indianhead Mountain Resort, Inc., 166 F.3d 848 (6th Cir. 1999).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(c)(1) — 2 cases

Chepkevich v. Hidden Valley Resort, L.P., 911 A.2d 946 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006).

— 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102(c)(2) — 3 cases

McDonald, E. v. Whitewater Challengers, Inc., 116 A.3d 99 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2015).

Cruz v. Gloss, 57 Pa. D. & C.4th 449 (2002).

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.