What does comparative negligence entail?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in tort law that allows for the allocation of fault between the parties involved in an accident or injury. When this principle applies, both the plaintiff and the defendant can be found to have contributed to the harm that occurred. As a result, damages awarded to the plaintiff are reduced in proportion to their share of the fault. For example, if a jury determines that a plaintiff was 30% at fault for an accident and the defendant was 70% at fault, the damages awarded to the plaintiff would be reduced by 30%.

This system contrasts with the concept of contributory negligence, where any fault on the part of the plaintiff could bar them from recovery entirely. In jurisdictions that apply comparative negligence, the focus is on the percentage of fault attributed to each party, allowing for a more equitable outcome in cases where multiple factors contributed to the injury.

The other options do not accurately describe comparative negligence. It does not absolve the defendant of all liability, as it allows the plaintiff to recover damages even if they share some degree of fault. It is not related to strict liability, which holds a party responsible regardless of fault, nor is it limited to intentional torts, as it applies to negligence claims as well.