The rule in one paragraph

Illinois uses modified comparative negligence. Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 your damages are reduced by your share of the fault and barred only where that share is more than 50%. At exactly 50% you recover half. The rule is set out in full, with worked figures, in the Illinois 51% fault rule.

This article is about what that rule actually does in a rideshare case, which is not what most people expect.

If you were the passenger

Start with the good news, because it is genuinely unusual. A rideshare passenger is almost never at fault for the collision. You were not driving, you had no control over speed, following distance or lane choice, and you owed no duty to other road users in respect of any of it.

So the reduction that dominates most injury claims usually does not arise. What the fault argument decides instead is who pays you:

• If the rideshare driver was at fault, the applicable period under 625 ILCS 57/10 determines the cover. With a passenger on board that is $1,000,000 in primary liability.
• If a third driver was at fault, their own policy responds first, and it may be far smaller. Illinois requires only $25,000 for one person under 625 ILCS 5/7-203.
• If both were at fault, apportionment under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 decides who can be pursued for what.

That third case is often the best outcome for a passenger, which is counterintuitive. It brings the rideshare policy into a case that might otherwise have been limited to a small personal policy.

Why the drivers blaming each other helps you

Passengers frequently find it distressing that both drivers immediately blame the other. In a claim it usually works in your favor.

Each driver is trying to move their own percentage down, and in doing so each produces evidence establishing the other’s negligence. Because you are not competing with either of them for a share of the blame, the material they generate is largely useful to you and costs you nothing.

Under 735 ILCS 5/2-1117, every defendant found liable is jointly and severally liable for past and future medical and medically related expenses, so that category can be recovered in full from any of them regardless of percentage. For other damages, a defendant at 25% or more is jointly and severally liable, while one below 25% pays only its own share. See multi-vehicle crash claims.

The arguments that are made against passengers

They are few, and they go to damages rather than to the collision:

• Seat belt use. Note that 625 ILCS 5/12-603.1(c) provides that failure to wear a seat belt is not evidence of negligence and may not be used to reduce recovery.
• Gaps in treatment, used to argue the injury was minor or came from elsewhere.
• Pre-existing conditions, answered with medical evidence rather than argument.
• Distracting the driver, which is occasionally raised and rarely goes anywhere without evidence.

Only the last touches fault at all, and the first is answered by statute.

If you were the rideshare driver

Here the ordinary analysis applies in full, and the stakes are higher than for an ordinary motorist:

• Your own percentage reduces your recovery, and above 50% removes it.
• Your app status decides which cover applies to you, as much as it does for your passenger.
• Personal policies commonly exclude carrying passengers for payment, which is why 625 ILCS 57/10(b)(2) requires contingent cover from the company in Period 1.

How fault percentages are set in practice is covered in how fault is decided, and the periods in Illinois rideshare insurance requirements.

The standard of care owed to passengers

Since 1 January 2024 rideshare companies have been treated as common carriers in Illinois, following the expiry of the statutory carve-out. That raises the standard of care owed to passengers above ordinary negligence, which matters to what a passenger has to prove. See Illinois common carrier law for rideshare passengers.

Deadlines

Two years under 735 ILCS 5/13-202; one year where a local public entity or its employee is a defendant under 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a); one year against the CTA under 70 ILCS 3605/41. See the Illinois filing deadlines.

Frequently Asked Questions

Talk to an Elmwood Park rideshare accident lawyer

For a rideshare passenger, the fault fight is mostly other people’s problem. The part that matters to you is which policy it lands on, because that determines whether the available insurance is measured in tens of thousands or in millions.

If you were hurt in a rideshare crash in Elmwood Park, Oak Lawn, Skokie, Niles, Orland Park or anywhere in Cook County, Lawyer Furqan will pursue every driver and every policy in play rather than settling with whoever answers first.

Call 847-800-8978 or contact us online. The consultation is free, there is nothing upfront, and you owe no attorney’s fee unless we win.

Sources and authorities cited

• 735 ILCS 5/2-1116 · comparative negligence; 2-1117 · apportionment and medical expenses
• 625 ILCS 57/10 · rideshare coverage periods, including contingent cover in Period 1
• 625 ILCS 5/7-203 · minimum liability limits
• 625 ILCS 5/12-603.1(c) · seat belt non-use is not evidence of negligence
• 735 ILCS 5/13-202, 745 ILCS 10/8-101(a), 70 ILCS 3605/41 · deadlines

This article is general legal information about Illinois law, not legal advice, and creates no attorney-client relationship. Nothing here predicts a result in any particular case.