Which option best describes the outcome of a comparative negligence case?

In a comparative negligence case, the principle that best applies is that liability is assigned based on each party's degree of negligence. This means that if an injured party is found to be partially at fault for their own injuries, their compensation will be reduced in proportion to their level of responsibility. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault for an accident while the defendant is 70% at fault, the plaintiff would only recover 70% of the total damages.

This process allows for a fair allocation of damages based on the specific circumstances of the case, acknowledging that negligence can be shared between multiple parties. This method contrasts with a rule of joint liability, where one party could be held fully accountable regardless of their actual contribution to the injury, or a rule of contributory negligence, where any fault on the part of the injured party would bar them from receiving damages entirely. Comparing negligence ensures that compensation reflects the actual circumstances, making it a just approach to resolving claims.