Can you recover if you were partly at fault for a fall in Indiana?

After a fall, it is common for a business or its insurer to say you were not watching where you were going, were wearing the wrong shoes, or were looking at your phone. Sometimes there is some truth to it. Under Indiana law, sharing some of the blame usually reduces a recovery rather than eliminating it.

Can I still recover if I was partly at fault for my slip and fall in Indiana?

Usually, yes. Under Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, your damages are reduced by your percentage of fault, and you are barred only if your fault is greater than the combined fault of everyone else (IC 34-51-2-6). At exactly 50% you can still recover. Claims against government entities follow a stricter rule.

How does Indiana’s comparative fault rule work?

Indiana follows a modified comparative fault system:

• Reduction. Any fault chargeable to the injured person reduces the damages proportionately (IC 34-51-2-5). If a jury finds total damages of $100,000 and assigns you 20% of the fault, the award is reduced by $20,000.
• The bar. You cannot recover if your fault is greater than the fault of all other persons whose fault contributed to the injury (IC 34-51-2-6). In practical terms, 51% or more bars recovery; 50% does not.
• Allocation among everyone. The jury assigns percentages to the injured person, each defendant, and any “nonparty” the defendants prove was at fault.

The example above is only an illustration of the math, not a prediction of any result.

What counts as “fault” in a fall case?

For comparative fault purposes, Indiana defines fault broadly. It includes negligent acts or omissions and also an unreasonable failure to avoid an injury or to mitigate damages (IC 34-6-2.1-68(b)). That is why defendants sometimes argue not only that you caused the fall, but also that you delayed treatment or did not follow medical advice.

What “it was your fault” arguments come up in fall cases?

• “The hazard was obvious.” Indiana applies the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 343 to business invitees (Burrell v. Meads, 1991). Part of that test is whether the business should have expected customers would not discover the danger or would fail to protect themselves from it. Obviousness is often disputed—for example, a clear liquid on a shiny floor, or a hazard next to a product display designed to draw attention.
• “You weren’t looking.” Stores are designed to draw shoppers’ eyes to shelves and signs, which can bear on what a reasonable customer would notice.
• “Your shoes were the problem.” Footwear is a common argument. Keeping your shoes as they were lets them be examined.
• “You were on your phone.” Video, if preserved, often answers this question.
• “You went somewhere you shouldn’t have.” Entering an employee-only or closed area can affect the analysis.

What evidence helps answer blame-shifting?

• Surveillance video showing the hazard, the lighting, and how the fall happened.
• Photos of the hazard taken right after the fall.
• Inspection, sweep, and cleaning logs showing whether employees checked the area.
• Evidence of missing warning signs or cones.
• Witnesses who saw the hazard or the fall.
• Your shoes and clothing.

Because video is often recorded over, it should be requested promptly. See what to do after falling in a store.

Can other parties share the blame?

The business you visited is not always the only party at fault. A landlord, property manager, cleaning contractor, or snow-removal company may share responsibility. Indiana allows a defendant to claim that a nonparty caused some or all of the harm (IC 34-51-2-14), and fault assigned to a nonparty reduces what the defendants pay. Identifying every responsible party early helps make sure fault is not assigned to someone who was never brought into the case. See our parking lot and sidewalk falls page for examples involving owners, tenants, and contractors.

Is the rule stricter for falls on government property?

Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act does not apply to claims against governmental entities (IC 34-51-2-2). Against a city, county, or state agency, an injured person’s own negligence can be a complete bar to recovery under the older contributory-negligence rule. Those claims also require written Tort Claims Act notice within 180 days (local) or 270 days (State). See slip and fall filing deadlines.

Should you argue fault with the adjuster?

Insurers sometimes use a quick recorded statement to lock in comments like “I wasn’t really looking.” You do not have to give the business’s insurer a recorded statement. Talk with a lawyer before discussing fault.

Was your fall blamed on you? Call 1-800-265-9881 or send the free case review form to talk about how Indiana’s comparative fault rules may apply.

General information only—not legal advice. Laws change and every case is different; deadlines can be shorter in some situations. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.