How does comparative negligence affect a plaintiff's recovery in tort law?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used in tort law that evaluates the fault of all parties involved in an accident or incident. When a plaintiff's recovery is subject to comparative negligence, it means that if the plaintiff is found to have contributed to their own injury or loss in some way, their compensation will be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.

For instance, if a court determines that a plaintiff was 30% at fault for an accident and awarded $100,000 in damages, the recovery would be reduced by that percentage, resulting in the plaintiff receiving $70,000. This framework acknowledges that multiple parties may hold some degree of responsibility and aims to allocate damages fairly based on the individual contributions to the incident.

In contrast, other options reflect misunderstandings of comparative negligence. For example, complete bars to recovery occur under a system known as contributory negligence, where any fault on the part of the plaintiff can preclude recovery entirely. Increasing the potential payout for the plaintiff or having no impact on legal proceedings would contradict the very purpose of comparative negligence, which is designed to balance the scales according to the involvement of each party in creating the circumstances leading to the claim.