Which of the following accurately describes pure comparative negligence?

Pure comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they are partially at fault for the incident that caused their injuries. Under this approach, a plaintiff can recover an amount that is reduced based on their percentage of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 70% at fault for an accident, and their total damages are $100,000, they would be entitled to recover $30,000 from the defendant.

In this context, the second choice accurately highlights that a plaintiff can still recover damages even if they hold a greater degree of negligence compared to the defendant. This distinguishes pure comparative negligence from other forms of negligence that may bar recovery if the plaintiff's fault exceeds a certain threshold.

Understanding this principle is crucial because it influences how damages are calculated and awarded in tort cases, emphasizing the balance of fault rather than an all-or-nothing approach. The other options do not capture the essence of pure comparative negligence as accurately as the correct choice.