Explore: Comparative Negligence

Comparative negligence, called non-absolute contributory negligence outside the United States, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages

have abolished it in favor of a "comparative fault" or "comparative negligence" approach. A comparative negligence approach reduces the plaintiff's damages

Maryland. Comparative negligence: In comparative negligence, the victim's damages are reduced according to the degree of fault. Comparative negligence has been

the employer may have a secondary assumption of risk defense. In comparative negligence jurisdictions, secondary assumption of risk is applied as a factor

reached its verdict on August 18, 1994. Applying the principles of comparative negligence, the jury found that McDonald's was 80 percent responsible for the

has been criticized as a relic of the era before the adoption of comparative negligence; a widely read William and Mary Law Review article further argues

contemporary Indian jurisprudence is based on the principle of comparative negligence. Consequently, when a person fails to use reasonable care for the

elements and therefore comparative negligence usually constitutes a better defence in many cases. Note however that comparative negligence is a partial defence

Comparative responsibility may apply to intentional torts as well as negligence and encompasses the doctrine of comparative negligence. Comparative responsibility

Negligence (Lat. negligentia) is a failure to exercise appropriate care expected to be exercised in similar circumstances. Within the scope of tort law