Which doctrine apportions fault by percentage and reduces recovery?

Which doctrine apportions fault by percentage and reduces recovery?

• A. It completely bars recovery
• B. It imposes strict liability
• C. It has no effect on damages
• D. It apportions fault by percentage and reduces recovery

Answer: (D)

Comparative negligence is the idea that fault is split among the parties in proportion to each person’s degree of responsibility, and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their own share of fault. In pure comparative negligence, you can still recover even if you’re largely at fault, but your damages shrink by the percentage of your fault. In modified comparative negligence, there’s a threshold—if your fault is above that level (often 50% or 51%), you recover nothing; otherwise your recovery is reduced in proportion to your fault. This is different from contributory negligence, which would bar recovery entirely if you’re at fault at all, and from strict liability, which assigns liability regardless of fault. So the description—apportioning fault by percentage and reducing recovery—best matches comparative negligence.

Comparative negligence is the idea that fault is split among the parties in proportion to each person’s degree of responsibility, and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their own share of fault. In pure comparative negligence, you can still recover even if you’re largely at fault, but your damages shrink by the percentage of your fault. In modified comparative negligence, there’s a threshold—if your fault is above that level (often 50% or 51%), you recover nothing; otherwise your recovery is reduced in proportion to your fault. This is different from contributory negligence, which would bar recovery entirely if you’re at fault at all, and from strict liability, which assigns liability regardless of fault. So the description—apportioning fault by percentage and reducing recovery—best matches comparative negligence.