What does comparative contribution imply about how judgment is divided among defendants?

Comparative contribution refers to a legal principle used in tort law that allocates responsibility for damages based on the degree of fault attributable to each defendant involved in a case. This means that each defendant is held financially responsible for damages in proportion to their level of culpability or negligence in causing the harm.

By selecting the option stating that judgment is divided according to the relative fault of each defendant, it accurately reflects the core aspect of comparative contribution. Instead of dividing liability equally or using arbitrary methods based on payment timing or liability caps, the damages awarded to the plaintiff are apportioned based on how much each defendant contributed to the injury or damage suffered. This approach encourages fairness in the legal system by ensuring that defendants are only required to pay for the part of the damages that correlates with their level of involvement in the wrongful act.

In practice, this could mean that if one defendant is found to be 70% responsible for the harm while another is only 30% responsible, the first would be liable for 70% of the damages awarded, and the second for 30%. This nuanced approach avoids the potential inequities of equal division or arbitrary payment structures, reflecting a more just allocation of responsibility in tort claims.