Start with Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122. In Arkansas, Arkansas follows modified comparative fault: a plaintiff may recover only if their fault is less than 50% of the total fault assigned. At 50% or more, recovery is barred; below that threshold, damages are reduced proportionally. That is the question this guide answers for being sued after a car accident. The personal-injury deadline is 3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105. Arkansas is an at-fault state; injured drivers pursue liability claims against negligent parties rather than operating under a no-fault tort immunity system.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Arkansas?
Yes. A driver, passenger, pedestrian, or property owner injured in a crash can file a negligence (or related) claim against an allegedly at-fault driver — and against owners or employers in some agency/vicarious-liability settings. Being “mostly not at fault” does not stop a lawsuit from being filed; it shapes whether the plaintiff can win and how much they recover.
You can also be sued even when you believe the other driver is primarily responsible. Fault is usually a contested jury (or settlement) issue under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122.
Comparative fault and negligence in Arkansas
Arkansas follows modified comparative fault: a plaintiff may recover only if their fault is less than 50% of the total fault assigned. At 50% or more, recovery is barred; below that threshold, damages are reduced proportionally.
In Arkansas, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
Practical consequences:
- Settlement leverage tracks predicted fault shares.
- Insurers often reserve rights or deny coverage based on comparative-fault findings.
- Multiple defendants (other drivers, employers, vehicle owners) can split fault among themselves under Arkansas allocation rules.
How the Arkansas rule applies
Apply the Arkansas authorities in order. The facts are simplified so the statute and the standard are visible.
Two drivers collide in Arkansas. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Arkansas, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Arkansas follows modified comparative fault: a plaintiff may recover only if their fault is less than 50% of the total fault assigned. At 50% or more, recovery is barred; below that threshold, damages are reduced proportionally.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Arkansas is an at-fault state; injured drivers pursue liability claims against negligent parties rather than operating under a no-fault tort immunity system.
In Arkansas the accident lawsuit turns on Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122 and the modified 50 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Arkansas is an at-fault state; injured drivers pursue liability claims against negligent parties rather than operating under a no-fault tort immunity system.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Arkansas uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105
Missing the deadline usually ends the claim permanently. Tolling (minority, discovery rules, bankruptcy stays) can apply in narrow situations — do not assume extra time without counsel.
What to do after a crash in Arkansas
- Get medical care and document injuries.
- Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
- Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
- Calendar the SOL: 3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Arkansas) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Arkansas
Thomas Jeff WALLIS Et Al v. MRS. SMITH’S PIE COMPANY
Thomas Jeff WALLIS Et Al v. MRS. SMITH’S PIE COMPANY, 261 Ark. 622 (1977)
…rkansas, on the other hand, follows the more modern rule of comparative fault which apportions liability between plaintiff and defendant and permits the injured plaintiff to recover as long as his fault is less than that of defendant. The traditional rule of lex loci delicti has fallen under much criticism in recent times and quoting from Babcock, supra, we find the following c…
On car-accident / fault, Thomas Jeff WALLIS Et Al v. MRS. SMITH’S PIE COMPANY speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "rkansas, on the other hand, follows the more modern rule of comparative fault which apportions liability between plaintiff and defendant and permits the injured plaintiff to recover as long as his fault is less than that of defendant. The traditional rule of lex loci delicti has" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Walton v. Tull
Walton v. Tull, 234 Ark. 882 (1962)
…interpretation of two statutes having no resemblance to our comparative negligence act. Smith v. American Oil Co., 77 Ga. App. 463, 49 S. E. 2d 90. In Wisconsin the statute is more nearly like ours, declaring that contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery “if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought.” Wis. Stats., §…
On car-accident / fault, Walton v. Tull speaks to the Arkansas dispute in this passage: "Smith v. American Oil Co., 77 Ga. App. 463, 49 S. E. 2d 90. In Wisconsin the statute is more nearly like ours, declaring that contributory negligence is not a bar to recovery “if such negligence was not as great as the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought.” Wis." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Billy C. SKINNER v. R.J. GRIFFIN & COMPANY — Hays, J., dissenting
Billy C. SKINNER v. R.J. GRIFFIN & COMPANY — Hays, J., dissenting, 313 Ark. 430 (1993)
…the plaintiff in order to be entitled to an instruction on comparative negligence. I respectfully disagree and suggest that approach seriously undermines the purpose and intent of comparative negligence. The statute itself is couched in the broadest possible language: In all actions for damages for personal injuries or wrongful death or injury to property in which recovery is…
Practitioners open Billy C. SKINNER v. R.J. GRIFFIN & COMPANY — Hays, J., dissenting when Arkansas car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "I respectfully disagree and suggest that approach seriously undermines the purpose and intent of comparative negligence." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Nationsbank, N.A. v. Murray Guard, Inc. — Thornton, J., dissenting
Nationsbank, N.A. v. Murray Guard, Inc. — Thornton, J., dissenting, 343 Ark. 437 (2001)
…whose negligence contributed to the loss, stands our law of comparative fault on its head, and I respectfully dissent. A review of the development of law on comparative fault shows clearly that it has never been the legislative intent to prohibit recovery by a plaintiff found by a jury to have been less that fifty percent at fault. By enacting the Act 191 of 1955, the “Prosser…
Arkansas opinions such as Nationsbank, N.A. v. Murray Guard, Inc. — Thornton, J., dissenting are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "I respectfully dissent. A review of the development of law on comparative fault shows clearly that it has never been the legislative intent to prohibit recovery by a plaintiff found by a jury to have been less that fifty percent at fault." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
Ralph KUBIK v. Joe W. IGLEHEART
Ralph KUBIK v. Joe W. IGLEHEART, 280 Ark. 310 (1983)
…e. The issue in this tort suit is whether an instruction on comparative negligence was properly refused by the trial court. The appellee, plaintiff below, was operating his motorboat in close proximity to appellant’s boat dock on Lake Norfork. Appellee testified that he was running the boat in a prudent manner when the appellant shot him. To the contrary, appellant’s testimony…
Arkansas opinions such as Ralph KUBIK v. Joe W. IGLEHEART are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "The issue in this tort suit is whether an instruction on comparative negligence was properly refused by the trial court. The appellee, plaintiff below, was operating his motorboat in close proximity to appellant’s boat dock on Lake Norfork." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
William R. Hass, Administrator of the Estate of Willard Hodges, Deceased v. Louis Kessell, by Leroy Kessell His
…Kessell's right to recovery was barred completely under our comparative negligence act. (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1730.1 et seq.) *845 We do not so construe the Tipton and Allen cases, and we do not so construe the act. A careful reading of the decision in the Tipton case clearly distinguishes it from the case at bar and actually sustains the judgment of the trial court in the case a…
William R. Hass, Administrator of the Estate of Willard Hodges, Deceased v. Louis Kessell, by Leroy Kessell His is worth reading on Arkansas car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Kessell's right to recovery was barred completely under our comparative negligence act. (Ark.Stat.Ann. § 27-1730.1 et seq.) *845 We do not so construe the Tipton and Allen cases, and we do not so construe the act." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 50% bar (recovery barred at 50% or more fault).
- Controlling authority: Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122.
- In Arkansas, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
- Personal-injury filing deadline: 3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105.
- Insurance: Arkansas is an at-fault state; injured drivers pursue liability claims against negligent parties rather than operating under a no-fault tort immunity system.
Frequently asked questions
Can I get sued if the accident was not my fault?
Anyone can file a suit. Winning — and collecting — depends on proving negligence and overcoming Arkansas’s modified 50 rules under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-122.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Arkansas, if you are 50% or more at fault, you recover nothing. Below 50%, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Arkansas?
3 years — Ark. Code Ann. § 16-56-105
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Arkansas is an at-fault state; injured drivers pursue liability claims against negligent parties rather than operating under a no-fault tort immunity system. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.