What does comparative negligence do in tort law?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine in tort law that addresses how damages are allocated when both the plaintiff and defendant share some degree of fault for an incident. Under this principle, if a plaintiff is found partially responsible for their own injuries, any damages awarded to them will be reduced in proportion to their level of fault.

For example, if a jury determines that a plaintiff is 30% at fault in a car accident and the total damages assessed are $100,000, the plaintiff's recovery would be reduced to $70,000 (which reflects the 30% fault). This method allows for a more equitable resolution by recognizing that multiple parties can contribute to the cause of an accident and that a plaintiff should not receive a full award if they were partially responsible for their injuries.

In contrast, eliminating all recovery would be more aligned with contributory negligence, where any fault from the plaintiff prevents them from recovering damages entirely. Awarding total damages without considering fault would not be in line with the comparative approach, which seeks to account for shared responsibility. Lastly, the provision for recovery of only economic damages does not encompass the broader implications of comparative negligence, which applies to both economic and non-economic damages.