Which statement about comparative negligence is true?

Which statement about comparative negligence is true?

• A. It bars recovery if the patient contributed
• B. It assigns fault proportionate to each party
• C. It ignores patient contribution
• D. It always reduces damages to zero

Answer: (B)

Comparative negligence allocates liability based on each party’s share of fault. In this system, damages are divided proportionally to how responsible each side is, and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their own degree of fault. For example, if the patient is 30% at fault and the defendant is 70% at fault for a $100,000 loss, the defendant would be liable for $70,000, and the patient could recover 70% of the total damages from the defendant. This stands in contrast to contributory negligence, which can bar recovery entirely if the patient contributed to the harm. Some jurisdictions use a modified form where recovery is barred if the patient’s fault exceeds a certain threshold (such as 50%), but the core idea in pure comparative negligence is the proportional allocation of fault among parties.

Comparative negligence allocates liability based on each party’s share of fault. In this system, damages are divided proportionally to how responsible each side is, and the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by their own degree of fault. For example, if the patient is 30% at fault and the defendant is 70% at fault for a $100,000 loss, the defendant would be liable for $70,000, and the patient could recover 70% of the total damages from the defendant. This stands in contrast to contributory negligence, which can bar recovery entirely if the patient contributed to the harm. Some jurisdictions use a modified form where recovery is barred if the patient’s fault exceeds a certain threshold (such as 50%), but the core idea in pure comparative negligence is the proportional allocation of fault among parties.