Which method for measuring the relative negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant, with a commensurate sharing of the compensation for the injuries?

Which method for measuring the relative negligence of the plaintiff and the defendant, with a commensurate sharing of the compensation for the injuries?

• A. Comparative negligence
• B. Negligence
• C. Intentional tort
• D. Real property

Answer: (A)

Comparative negligence is the method used to assign damages based on each party’s share of fault. It allows the plaintiff and defendant to share the losses proportionally to how much each contributed to the harm, rather than awarding all damages to one side or none. For example, if total damages are $100,000 and the plaintiff is 30% at fault, the plaintiff would typically recover $70,000 under pure comparative negligence. Some jurisdictions use a modified version where the plaintiff must be less than a certain percentage at fault (often 50% or 51%) to recover at all. The other concepts listed don’t address this apportionment of damages by fault: negligence is a general failure to exercise reasonable care, an intentional tort involves deliberate harm, and real property deals with land and ownership rights.

Comparative negligence is the method used to assign damages based on each party’s share of fault. It allows the plaintiff and defendant to share the losses proportionally to how much each contributed to the harm, rather than awarding all damages to one side or none. For example, if total damages are $100,000 and the plaintiff is 30% at fault, the plaintiff would typically recover $70,000 under pure comparative negligence. Some jurisdictions use a modified version where the plaintiff must be less than a certain percentage at fault (often 50% or 51%) to recover at all. The other concepts listed don’t address this apportionment of damages by fault: negligence is a general failure to exercise reasonable care, an intentional tort involves deliberate harm, and real property deals with land and ownership rights.