Can I Get Sued After a Car Accident in Illinois? Does Fault Matter?

If you only remember one point about being sued after a car accident in Illinois, remember this: Illinois uses modified comparative fault under § 2-1116: recovery is barred if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off 735 ILCS 5/2-1116. The personal-injury deadline is 2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202. Illinois is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; there is no broad no-fault tort immunity for car-accident bodily-injury claims.

Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds

Illinois is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; there is no broad no-fault tort immunity for car-accident bodily-injury claims.

First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Illinois uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.

Walking through Illinois facts

Use this walkthrough to see which Illinois authority does the work at each step.

Two drivers collide in Illinois. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.

1. Identify the fault system: In Illinois, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
2. Apply what fault does to the claim: Illinois uses modified comparative fault under § 2-1116: recovery is barred if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
3. Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
4. Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Illinois is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; there is no broad no-fault tort immunity for car-accident bodily-injury claims.

In Illinois the accident lawsuit turns on 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.

Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)

2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202

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 Illinois

1. Get medical care and document injuries.
2. Preserve photos, dash-cam, witness names, and the police report.
3. Notify your insurer promptly; avoid recorded statements to the other driver’s insurer without advice.
4. Calendar the SOL: 2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
5. Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Illinois) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.

Case law: fault and auto accidents in Illinois

JAE BOON LEE, Adm’x of the Estate of Sang Yeul Lee, Deceased, Appellant, v. THE CHICAGO TRANSIT AU — Heiple, J

JAE BOON LEE, Adm’x of the Estate of Sang Yeul Lee, Deceased, Appellant, v. THE CHICAGO TRANSIT AU — Heiple, J, 152 Ill. 2d 432 (1992)

…his accident, Illinois was operating under the pure form of comparative negligence. That is to say, if a defendant were at fault to any extent, the plaintiff could recover that percent of his damages. In other words, a plaintiff who was 90% negligent on his own behalf could still recover 10% of his damages from a partially culpable defendant. Due to a statutory enactment, howev…

Practitioners open JAE BOON LEE, Adm’x of the Estate of Sang Yeul Lee, Deceased, Appellant, v. THE CHICAGO TRANSIT AU — Heiple, J when Illinois car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Illinois was operating under the pure form of comparative negligence. That is to say, if a defendant were at fault to any extent, the plaintiff could recover that percent of his damages." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

JAMES ALVIS, Appellant, v. JAMES RIBAR Et Al., Appellees; KARIN KROHN, Adm’r, Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES

JAMES ALVIS, Appellant, v. JAMES RIBAR Et Al., Appellees; KARIN KROHN, Adm’r, Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES, 85 Ill. 2d 1 (1981)

…ntiff’s complaint included a count based on the doctrine of comparative negligence, which count was dismissed by the trial court on motion by the defendants. In Alvis v. Ribar, the appellate court affirmed summarily, stating, “*** it is not for this court to attempt to reverse the many cases and opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court in this area.” (78 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 1119.)…

On car-accident / fault, JAMES ALVIS, Appellant, v. JAMES RIBAR Et Al., Appellees; KARIN KROHN, Adm’r, Appellant, v. ABBOTT LABORATORIES speaks to the Illinois dispute in this passage: "In Alvis v. Ribar, the appellate court affirmed summarily, stating, “*** it is not for this court to attempt to reverse the many cases and opinions of the Illinois Supreme Court in this area.” (78 Ill. App. 3d 1117, 1119." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

JACK A. CONEY, Adm’r, Appellee, v. J. L. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant

JACK A. CONEY, Adm’r, Appellee, v. J. L. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant, 97 Ill. 2d 104 (1983)

…tive defenses. The first asserted that Jasper was guilty of comparative negligence or fault in his operation of the platform. The second contended that Jasper’s employer, V. Jobst & Sons, Inc., was also guilty of comparative negligence in failing to instruct and train Jasper on the operation of the platform and by failing to provide a “groundman.” In these defenses, defendant r…

Illinois opinions such as JACK A. CONEY, Adm’r, Appellee, v. J. L. G. INDUSTRIES, INC., Appellant are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "The first asserted that Jasper was guilty of comparative negligence or fault in his operation of the platform. The second contended that Jasper’s employer, V. Jobst & Sons, Inc." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.

ADOLPHUS GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.U. TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee

ADOLPHUS GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.U. TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 331 Ill. App. 3d 924 (2002)

…nd Neff are no longer applicable in view of the adoption of comparative negligence by the Illinois Supreme Court in Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1, 421 N.E.2d 886 (1981). In 1971, the Neff court agreed with the majority view that once an employer admits responsibility under respondeat superior, a plaintiff may not proceed against the employer on another theory of imputed liabilit…

ADOLPHUS GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. L.U. TRANSPORT, INC., Defendant-Appellee is worth reading on Illinois car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Neff are no longer applicable in view of the adoption of comparative negligence by the Illinois Supreme Court in Alvis v. Ribar, 85 Ill. 2d 1, 421 N.E.2d 886 (1981)." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.

ERICK A. WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAREN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party

ERICK A. WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAREN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party, 246 Ill. App. 3d 1084 (1993)

…nizes indemnity actions, and not contribution actions where comparative negligence is at issue, no substantive basis exists to support defendants’ contribution actions. Plaintiff accordingly asserts that these contribution actions should have been stricken. We reject plaintiff’s argument. Plaintiff has not directed this court to a motion to strike the contribution claims of whi…

Practitioners open ERICK A. WALTERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MAREN ENGINEERING CORPORATION, Defendant and Third-Party when Illinois car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Plaintiff accordingly asserts that these contribution actions should have been stricken. We reject plaintiff’s argument." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.

LARRY JOHNSON, Adm’r of the Estate of Cory Johnson, Deceased, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAN O’NEAL, Special

LARRY JOHNSON, Adm’r of the Estate of Cory Johnson, Deceased, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAN O’NEAL, Special, 216 Ill. App. 3d 975 (1991)

…computational verdict forms be provided to the jury in all comparative negligence cases, and (2) does the prayer for relief contained in a notice of appeal control the issues which may be adjudicated in a new trial. I. Procedural History In November 1986, this action commenced when plaintiffs filed a complaint against the special administrator of the estate of decedent Michael…

On car-accident / fault, LARRY JOHNSON, Adm’r of the Estate of Cory Johnson, Deceased, Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DAN O’NEAL, Special speaks to the Illinois dispute in this passage: "computational verdict forms be provided to the jury in all comparative negligence cases, and (2) does the prayer for relief contained in a notice of appeal control the issues which may be adjudicated in a new trial. I. Procedural History In November 1986, this action commenced wh" The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.

Key takeaways

• Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
• Controlling authority: 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.
• In Illinois, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.
• Personal-injury filing deadline: 2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202.
• Insurance: Illinois is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; there is no broad no-fault tort immunity for car-accident bodily-injury claims.

Can you be sued after a car accident in Illinois?

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 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.

Comparative fault and negligence in Illinois

Illinois uses modified comparative fault under § 2-1116: recovery is barred if the plaintiff is more than 50% at fault. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

In Illinois, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, 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 Illinois allocation rules.

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 Illinois’s modified 51 rules under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116.

What if I was partly at fault?

In Illinois, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault.

How long do I have to sue after a car accident in Illinois?

2 years — 735 ILCS 5/13-202

Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?

Illinois is an at-fault liability state with mandatory minimum bodily-injury coverage; there is no broad no-fault tort immunity for car-accident bodily-injury claims. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.