If you only remember one point about being sued after a car accident in Montana, remember this: Montana uses modified comparative fault under § 27-1-702: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the fault of the defendant or combined defendants. Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702. The personal-injury deadline is 3 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204. Montana is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort bar.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Montana is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort bar.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Montana uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Walking through Montana facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Montana authority does the work at each step.
Two drivers collide in Montana. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Montana, if you are more than 50% at fault (51%+), you recover nothing. At 50% or less, damages are reduced by your share of fault..
- Apply what fault does to the claim: Montana uses modified comparative fault under § 27-1-702: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the fault of the defendant or combined defendants. Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: 3 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204.
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Montana is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort bar.
In Montana the accident lawsuit turns on Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
3 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204
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 Montana
- 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 — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204.
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Montana) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Montana
JEANNINE NEWVILLE and DAMON GANNETT, Co-Guardians Ad Litem for R.M., a Minor, Plaintiffs, Appellants and
…jury attributed negligence under § 27-1-703, MCA, Montana’s comparative negligence statute, to the State of Montana Department of Family Services (30%), the foster mother (35%) and a professional counselor who had treated the foster mother and father over a period of years (35%). The foster father was not listed on the special verdict form because the District Court found his c…
On car-accident / fault, JEANNINE NEWVILLE and DAMON GANNETT, Co-Guardians Ad Litem for R.M., a Minor, Plaintiffs, Appellants and speaks to the Montana dispute in this passage: "MCA, Montana’s comparative negligence statute, to the State of Montana Department of Family Services (30%), the foster mother (35%) and a professional counselor who had treated the foster mother and father over a period of years (35%)." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
MARSHA HARDING, Natural Mother and Personal Representative of the Estate of CANDICE JAMIE JANE SHUCK, Deceased
…n for a mistrial, and its issuance of a jury instruction on comparative negligence. We reverse. ¶ 2 We restate Appellant's issues on appeal as follows: I Did the District Court err in allowing Respondents to present argument and jury instructions on comparative negligence? II Did the District Court err in preventing Appellant from addressing the issue of comparative negligence…
Practitioners open MARSHA HARDING, Natural Mother and Personal Representative of the Estate of CANDICE JAMIE JANE SHUCK, Deceased when Montana car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "We reverse. ¶ 2 We restate Appellant's issues on appeal as follows: I Did the District Court err in allowing Respondents to present argument and jury instructions on comparative negligence?" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
CYNTHIA DeMARS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONNIE CARLSTROM, Defendant and Respondent
…Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding DeMars comparatively negligent, and apportioning liability between the two parties. DeMars subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b), M.R.Civ.P, on the issue of liability. In the alternative, DeMars moved for a new trial on the issue of comparative negligence pursuant to § 25-…
Practitioners open CYNTHIA DeMARS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. CONNIE CARLSTROM, Defendant and Respondent when Montana car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Following trial, the jury returned a verdict finding DeMars comparatively negligent, and apportioning liability between the two parties. DeMars subsequently filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 50(b), M.R.Civ.P, on the issue of liability." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
DARLENE PAYNE, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAYMOND A. NAUMER, Plaintiff and
…er rationale behind special verdict forms. In our system of comparative negligence, special verdict forms exist so that the jury can apportion percentages of negligence to the parties. Without apportionment, whether it helps jurors “focus their minds” or not, comparing negligence is impossible. In this case, the purpose of apportionment-determining the degree of fault-was fulfi…
Montana opinions such as DARLENE PAYNE, Individually, and as Personal Representative of the Estate of RAYMOND A. NAUMER, Plaintiff and are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "In our system of comparative negligence, special verdict forms exist so that the jury can apportion percentages of negligence to the parties. Without apportionment, whether it helps jurors “focus their minds” or not, comparing negligence is impossible." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
JOSEPH CORDIER and JO CORDIER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiff, v. STETSON-ROSS, INC., a Washington Corporation
…efore based on (1) indemnity, or (2) contribution under our comparative negligence statute. We look first at the contribution issue. In Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. June Osier and Margaret Collins (1979), 185 Mont. 439,_P.2d_, 36 St.Rep. 1810, we held that except in those cases covered by our comparative negligence statute, there is no substantive right t…
JOSEPH CORDIER and JO CORDIER, Husband and Wife, Plaintiff, v. STETSON-ROSS, INC., a Washington Corporation is worth reading on Montana car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "We look first at the contribution issue. In Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware v. June Osier and Margaret Collins (1979), 185 Mont. 439,_P.2d_, 36 St.Rep." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
RITA DERENBERGER, Guardian Ad Litem of Raymond Derenberger, a — Gulbrandson, J., concurring in part and dissenting
…the Montana legislature borrowed the exact language of the comparative negligence statute, has confronted the precise issue that is now before this Court. In Bielski v. Schulze, (1962), 16 Wis.2d 1, 114 N.W.2d 105 111-113, the Supreme Court of Wisconsin analyzed this issue as follows: *12“The history of the development of gross negligence, its reason for existing, the content…
RITA DERENBERGER, Guardian Ad Litem of Raymond Derenberger, a — Gulbrandson, J., concurring in part and dissenting is worth reading on Montana car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Montana legislature borrowed the exact language of the comparative negligence statute, has confronted the precise issue that is now before this Court. In Bielski v. Schulze, (1962), 16 Wis.2d 1, 114 N.W." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
- Controlling authority: Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702.
- In Montana, 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: 3 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204.
- Insurance: Montana is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort bar.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Montana?
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 Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702.
Comparative fault and negligence in Montana
Montana uses modified comparative fault under § 27-1-702: recovery is barred if the plaintiff's fault is greater than the fault of the defendant or combined defendants. Otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
In Montana, 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 Montana 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 Montana’s modified 51 rules under Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-702.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Montana, 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 Montana?
3 years — Mont. Code Ann. § 27-2-204
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Montana is an at-fault liability state; injured parties pursue negligent drivers' bodily-injury coverage without a no-fault tort bar. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.