If you only remember one point about being sued after a car accident in Pennsylvania, remember this: Pennsylvania’s Modified Comparative Negligence Act bars recovery if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant; otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault. Procedure, examples, and the opinions below hang off 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102. The personal-injury deadline is Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7).. Pennsylvania’s choice/no-fault auto system applies to first-party benefits; fault and § 7102 govern third-party tort recovery in qualifying cases.
Insurance: at-fault, PIP, and no-fault thresholds
Pennsylvania’s choice/no-fault auto system applies to first-party benefits; fault and § 7102 govern third-party tort recovery in qualifying cases.
First-party benefits (PIP / MedPay) do not always eliminate a tort suit. Where Pennsylvania uses a no-fault threshold, confirm whether your injuries meet the statutory trigger before assuming a lawsuit is barred or available.
Walking through Pennsylvania facts
Use this walkthrough to see which Pennsylvania authority does the work at each step.
Two drivers collide in Pennsylvania. Each claims the other was negligent, and one was partly at fault.
- Identify the fault system: In Pennsylvania, 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: Pennsylvania’s Modified Comparative Negligence Act bars recovery if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant; otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
- Calendar the lawsuit deadline: Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7)..
- Separate insurance coverage from whether a tort claim exists: Pennsylvania’s choice/no-fault auto system applies to first-party benefits; fault and § 7102 govern third-party tort recovery in qualifying cases.
In Pennsylvania the accident lawsuit turns on 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102 and the modified 51 rule, not on a national no-fault script.
Deadline to sue (statute of limitations)
Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7).
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 Pennsylvania
- 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: Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7)..
- Use LawDiver’s LawDiver rail (scoped to Pennsylvania) to research comparative/contributory negligence opinions before negotiating.
Case law: fault and auto accidents in Pennsylvania
John C. KRIVIJANSKI, Administrator of the Estate of Michael E. Krivijanski, Deceased, Appellant v. UNION RAILROAD
…of each decedent set at $25,000. The court then applied the comparative negligence law (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102)1 and molded the verdict to reflect the fault of the parties. After adding delay damages, the court awarded $19,375.00 to each of the plaintiffs. Appeals and cross appeals filed in each of the actions are presently before us. The appellants/plaintiffs argue the lower cour…
Practitioners open John C. KRIVIJANSKI, Administrator of the Estate of Michael E. Krivijanski, Deceased, Appellant v. UNION RAILROAD when Pennsylvania car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "The court then applied the comparative negligence law (42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102)1 and molded the verdict to reflect the fault of the parties. After adding delay damages, the court awarded $19,375.00 to each of the plaintiffs." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
George R.H. ELDER, Appellee, v. Adam ORLUCK, Appellee, v. BOROUGH OF HARRISVILLE, Appellant
…sents the issue whether in an action under the Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act1 involving more than one defendant, should the negligence of the plaintiff be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants or should plaintiffs negligence be compared to the separate and individual negligence of each defendant? This question is one of first impression before this Cou…
George R.H. ELDER, Appellee, v. Adam ORLUCK, Appellee, v. BOROUGH OF HARRISVILLE, Appellant is worth reading on Pennsylvania car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "Pennsylvania Comparative Negligence Act1 involving more than one defendant, should the negligence of the plaintiff be compared to the combined negligence of all defendants or should plaintiffs negligence be compared to the separate and individual negligence of each defendant?" Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
David F. KELLY and Patricia Ann Kelly, His Wife v. the CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. WILLSON
…intiff for the purpose of apportioning negligence under the Comparative Negligence Act?[1] The trial court held that joinder under either procedure was improper. We affirm. David F. Kelly, an employee of Power Piping Company, was injured when an abrasive grinding wheel attached to a mechanical grinder broke while in use. He and his wife commenced an action in trespass against T…
David F. KELLY and Patricia Ann Kelly, His Wife v. the CARBORUNDUM COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. WILLSON is worth reading on Pennsylvania car-accident / fault because the court put the point in its own words: "The trial court held that joinder under either procedure was improper. We affirm. David F. Kelly, an employee of Power Piping Company, was injured when an abrasive grinding wheel attached to a mechanical grinder broke while in use." Use that passage as the starting point, then read the facts that precede it.
Anthony BOYLE and Maureen Boyle, h/w v. INDEPENDENT LIFT TRUCK, INC. and Frank Fatiga, Jr.
…allegedly improper special verdict sheet question regarding comparative negli*493gence,1 where the jury never reached the issue of comparative negligence. For the reasons set forth below, we find that, where a jury never considered the issue of comparative negligence, any alleged error concerning the verdict sheet in that regard is harmless and a new trial is not warranted. The…
On car-accident / fault, Anthony BOYLE and Maureen Boyle, h/w v. INDEPENDENT LIFT TRUCK, INC. and Frank Fatiga, Jr. speaks to the Pennsylvania dispute in this passage: "For the reasons set forth below, we find that, where a jury never considered the issue of comparative negligence, any alleged error concerning the verdict sheet in that regard is harmless and a new trial is not warranted." The surrounding opinion shows how the court applied that language to the record.
Thomas J. McMEEKIN v. HARRY M. STEVENS, INC., Appellant, v. DOUGLAS FURNITURE CORPORATION
…erred in instructing the jury as to the application of the Comparative Negligence Act (Comparative Act), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102 et seq. In 1980, Stevens operated a restaurant facility near Harrisburg. Plaintiff, in the original action, brought suit against Stevens alleging that a chair upon which he was sitting at the establishment had collapsed. Stevens joined Douglas Furniture…
Practitioners open Thomas J. McMEEKIN v. HARRY M. STEVENS, INC., Appellant, v. DOUGLAS FURNITURE CORPORATION when Pennsylvania car-accident / fault turns on the distinction in this sentence: "Comparative Negligence Act (Comparative Act), 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 7102 et seq. In 1980, Stevens operated a restaurant facility near Harrisburg." Do not lift it out of the facts the court was deciding.
Key takeaways
- Fault system: modified comparative fault with a 51% bar (recovery barred if you are more than 50% at fault).
- Controlling authority: 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102.
- In Pennsylvania, 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: Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7)..
- Insurance: Pennsylvania’s choice/no-fault auto system applies to first-party benefits; fault and § 7102 govern third-party tort recovery in qualifying cases.
Can you be sued after a car accident in Pennsylvania?
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 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102.
Comparative fault and negligence in Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania’s Modified Comparative Negligence Act bars recovery if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant; otherwise damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s share of fault.
In Pennsylvania, 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 Pennsylvania 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 Pennsylvania’s modified 51 rules under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 7102.
What if I was partly at fault?
In Pennsylvania, 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 Pennsylvania?
Two years for personal injury actions under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 5524(7).
Does insurance prevent a lawsuit?
Pennsylvania’s choice/no-fault auto system applies to first-party benefits; fault and § 7102 govern third-party tort recovery in qualifying cases. Coverage disputes are separate from whether a tort claim exists.