Comparative negligence allows a defendant to argue that a plaintiff/victim’s own conduct contributed to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff/victim.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Statement under consideration: 'Comparative negligence allows a defendant to argue that a plaintiff/victim’s own conduct contributed to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff/victim.'

Option 1 (True): This assertion is accurate in many legal systems. Comparative negligence is a fault-allocation principle that permits a defendant to contend that the plaintiff’s own actions or omissions contributed to the damages. If the fact-finder (judge or jury) finds the plaintiff partly at fault, the plaintiff’s damages can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault. In some jurisdictions, this leads to a reduction of recovery (pure or modified comparative negligence), while in others it can bar recovery if the plaintiff’s fault reaches a certain threshold. This concept contrasts with contributory negligence enshrined in some older systems, where any fault by the plaintiff could bar recovery entirely. The core idea is that liability is apportioned based on comparative levels of fault between plaintiff and defendant, rather than the defendant bearing full responsibility irrespective of the plaintiff’s conduct.

Option 2 (False): This would be incorrect because the statement as a blanket claim ignores the broader framework of fault allocation. If a jurisdiction uses pure contributory negligence, a plaintiff’s own fault can completely bar recovery, but in many places comparative negligence is recognized specifically to allow fault to be shared. Even where contributory negligence exists, the claim here would be incomplete because it would imply that comparative negligence is universally unavailable, which is not true across common law jurisdictions. Additionally, the phrase implies that comparative negligence is inapplicable if the plaintiff’s conduct contributed to injuries, which contradicts the purpose of comparative schemes that quantify and account for that very contribution to reduce liability proportionately.

Overall, the statement aligns with the typical understanding of comparative negligence as a defense that reduces or apportions liability based on the plaintiff’s degree of fault, while acknowledging that some jurisdictions may have different rules (such as contributory negligence).

Comparative negligence allows a defendant to argue that a plaintiff/victim’s own conduct contributed to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff/victim.

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler