Montana bars recovery if you are more than 50% at fault. That rule under Montana's modified comparative negligence law gets mixed up with proximate cause, but they are not the same thing. Cause in fact asks a simple question: would the injury have happened "but for" someone's act? Proximate cause asks the next question: was the injury a close enough, predictable result that the law will hold that person responsible?

That difference matters in real claims. A driver may admit they slid on black ice on I-15, but the insurer may still argue your later surgery was caused by a preexisting condition, not the crash. In a hospital or nursing home case, staff may admit a mistake happened, then fight over whether that mistake actually led to the infection, perforation, dehydration, or other harm. That is a proximate-cause fight.

What to do: get treatment fast, follow up consistently, and make sure the records connect the event to the injury. Save photos, weather reports, crash reports, and names of witnesses. In Montana wrecks involving wildfire smoke, blizzard conditions, wildlife, or tipped trailers in high wind, insurers often argue the weather or road conditions were the "real cause." Good evidence can show the defendant's conduct still set the injury in motion in a legally meaningful way.