Which type of negligence allows the plaintiff to recover losses even if they are mostly at fault?

The concept of pure comparative negligence allows the plaintiff to recover damages even if they are primarily at fault for the incident. This legal standard means that the court will assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in an accident or injury. For instance, if a jury finds that a plaintiff was 70% responsible for the accident and the defendant was 30% responsible, the plaintiff can still recover 30% of the damages incurred.

This framework promotes fairness by acknowledging that multiple parties can contribute to an accident, and it ensures that a plaintiff is not entirely barred from recovery merely due to a significant portion of their own fault. This is particularly advantageous in situations where liability is shared, allowing for a more equitable resolution based on the specific contributions of each party to the overall cause of the harm.

In contrast, contributory negligence would completely bar recovery if the plaintiff is found to have any degree of fault. Negligence per se relates to violations of laws or regulations that automatically establish negligence without needing to prove the standard of care. Strict liability pertains to holding a party liable irrespective of negligence or fault, often in cases involving inherently dangerous activities or defective products.