North Dakota's rule on being sued after a car accident turns on a feature the national template does not capture: North Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff as negligent as or more negligent than the defendant is barred; lesser fault reduces recovery proportionally. The controlling authority is N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02. The personal-injury deadline is Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1).. North Dakota requires auto liability insurance; comparative fault reductions apply to jury awards and negotiated settlements.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 50% bar (recovery barred at 50% or more fault).
- Controlling authority: N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02.
- In North Dakota, 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: Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1)..
- Insurance: North Dakota requires auto liability insurance; comparative fault reductions apply to jury awards and negotiated settlements.
Worked example under North Dakota law
The illustration below uses only rules already stated for North Dakota. It is a research hypothetical, not a prediction of what a court will do.
Two drivers collide in North Dakota. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In North Dakota, 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: North Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff as negligent as or more negligent than the defendant is barred; lesser fault reduces recovery proportionally.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1)..
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: North Dakota requires auto liability insurance; comparative fault reductions apply to jury awards and negotiated settlements.
In North Dakota the accident lawsuit turns on N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02 and the modified 50 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Can you be sued after a car accident in North Dakota?
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 N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02.
Comparative fault and negligence in North Dakota
North Dakota applies modified comparative fault. A plaintiff as negligent as or more negligent than the defendant is barred; lesser fault reduces recovery proportionally.
In North Dakota, 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 North Dakota allocation rules.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
North Dakota requires auto liability insurance; comparative fault reductions apply to jury awards and negotiated settlements.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where North Dakota 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)
Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1).
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 North Dakota
- 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: Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1)..
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to North Dakota) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in North Dakota
John Mark BARTELS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WILLISTON, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Donald HACKNEY, Third
…sors Act, Chapter 32-38, North Dakota Century Code, and the comparative negligence act, § 9-10-07, NDCC. The facts are not in dispute. On 11 March 1977, about 2:30 a. m., John Mark Bartels (plaintiff), a passenger in a 1976 Jeep Cherokee, was seriously injured, causing him to be a quadriplegic, when the Jeep, driven by its owner, Donald Hackney (third-party defendant), went ove…
On car-accident / fault, John Mark BARTELS, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF WILLISTON, Defendant and Third Party Plaintiff, v. Donald HACKNEY, Third speaks to the North Dakota dispute in this passage: "Act, Chapter 32-38, North Dakota Century Code, and the comparative negligence act, § 9-10-07, NDCC. The facts are not in dispute. On 11 March 1977, about 2:30 a. m." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
William LAYMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee, v. BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE MASCHINENBAUANSTALT, INC., a
…$17,962.88 plus costs and disbursements “calculated by the comparative negligence statute at 25 percent of $71,851.50.” *339Layman contends the trial court erred in interpreting the comparative negligence act, Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C., to require the reduction of his recovery against BMA by the percentage of negligence attributable to Minn-Dak. BMA, in its cross-appeal, conte…
Practitioners open William LAYMAN, Plaintiff, Appellant, and Cross-Appellee, v. BRAUNSCHWEIGISCHE MASCHINENBAUANSTALT, INC., a when North Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Layman contends the trial court erred in interpreting the comparative negligence act, Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C., to require the reduction of his recovery against BMA by the percentage of negligence attributable to Minn-Dak." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Thomas J. DAY and Lynda Day, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant
…e or, as the case may be, defeat plaintiffs recovery? 3. If comparative fault is applicable, should it be applied so as to allow plaintiff a recovery even though plaintiffs percentage of fault is found to be as great or greater than that of a defendant? The following information was also provided: On 21 July 1977, at about 2:30 a.m., plaintiff Thomas J. Day (Day) was driving a…
Practitioners open Thomas J. DAY and Lynda Day, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant when North Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "If comparative fault is applicable, should it be applied so as to allow plaintiff a recovery even though plaintiffs percentage of fault is found to be as great or greater than that of a defendant?" Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
John Wesely HOREJSI, an Infant, by His Guardian Ad Litem, William ANTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Brenda
…mpliedly repealed by the subsequent legislative adoption of comparative negligence. See Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C.; Bartels v. City of Williston, 276 N.W.2d 113, 121 (N.D.1979). In Bartels, supra, addressing the obvious conflicts between Chapter 32-38 and our comparative negligence statute, Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C., we held that the legislature’s adoption of comparative neglige…
Practitioners open John Wesely HOREJSI, an Infant, by His Guardian Ad Litem, William ANTON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. Brenda when North Dakota car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "See Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C.; Bartels v. City of Williston, 276 N.W.2d 113, 121 (N.D.1979). In Bartels, supra, addressing the obvious conflicts between Chapter 32-38 and our comparative negligence statute, Section 9-10-07, N.D.C.C." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Betty GROLEAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BJORNSON OIL COMPANY, IN — Maring, J., concurring in part and dissenting
…lish the “open and obvious” doctrine and apply our modified comparative fault law. I also dissent from the majority opinion because even if the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965) is applied, it does not relieve a possessor of land of a duty to invitees merely because the condition is “obvious.” [¶ 28] “Landowners owe a general duty to lawful entrants to maintain their…
Betty GROLEAU, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BJORNSON OIL COMPANY, IN — Maring, J., concurring in part and dissenting is worth reading on North Dakota car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "I also dissent from the majority opinion because even if the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343A (1965) is applied, it does not relieve a possessor of land of a duty to invitees merely because the condition is “obvious." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Ronald A. KELLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Tom Alme
…e: (1) the instruction is inappropriate in a case involving comparative negligence principles; (2) there is no evidence in the record that Keller momentarily forgot the danger posed by the baler rollers; and (3) the instruction misled the jury and was prejudicial to Vermeer. We do not believe the trial court erred. Vermeer first asserts that momentary forgetfulness has no place…
Ronald A. KELLER, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. VERMEER MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Defendant and Appellant, Tom Alme is worth reading on North Dakota car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Keller momentarily forgot the danger posed by the baler rollers; and (3) the instruction misled the jury and was prejudicial to Vermeer. We do not believe the trial court erred." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Greg HOERR, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NORTHFIELD FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY and Country Hill Cabinets, Defendants
…held that the joint and several liability provisions of our comparative negligence statute, § 9-10-07, N.D.C.C., are for the benefit of the injured party and may be waived. We further held that by entering into a general release the plaintiff has waived the joint and several liability provisions of § 9-10-07, N.D.C.C., and that the plaintiff’s recovery from the nonsettling tort…
North Dakota opinions such as Greg HOERR, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. NORTHFIELD FOUNDRY AND MACHINE COMPANY and Country Hill Cabinets, Defendants are cited where car-accident / fault is disputed. The court stated: "N.D.C.C., are for the benefit of the injured party and may be waived. We further held that by entering into a general release the plaintiff has waived the joint and several liability provisions of § 9-10-07, N.D.C.C." That is the language to brief; the rest of the decision supplies the procedural posture.
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 North Dakota’s modified 50 rules under N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-02.
What if I was partly at fault?
In North Dakota, 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 North Dakota?
Six years for personal injury claims under N.D. Cent. Code § 28-01-16(1).
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
North Dakota requires auto liability insurance; comparative fault reductions apply to jury awards and negotiated settlements. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.