How does comparative negligence affect damages awarded to a plaintiff?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that plays a vital role in determining how damages are awarded in a negligence case when both parties share some degree of fault for the incident. Under this principle, if a plaintiff is found to have contributed to their own injury, the amount of damages they receive will be adjusted in proportion to their level of responsibility in causing the accident.

For instance, if a plaintiff is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found to be 30% at fault for their injuries, their recoverable damages would be reduced by that percentage, resulting in an award of $70,000. This approach ensures a fair assessment of responsibility and liability, as it recognizes that plaintiffs are not entirely blameless in every case.

This method promotes a more equitable distribution of damages and encourages individuals to act responsibly to minimize the risk of harm to themselves. The reduction in damages based on the plaintiff's degree of fault contrasts with other potential outcomes, such as receiving no damages at all or having the full amount upheld without consideration of their own negligence, emphasizing the importance of accountability in personal injury claims.