Comparative negligence is a rule for splitting the blame—and the cost—when both parties in an accident were partly at fault. Instead of an all-or-nothing outcome, the court assigns each side a percentage of responsibility and reduces the damages an injured party can recover by their own share of fault. It's the modern, fairer answer to situations where nobody was 100% innocent.

Why it matters

Real accidents are rarely one person's fault alone. Comparative negligence lets an injured party still recover something even if they contributed to the harm, while making sure they don't get paid for the portion they caused. This directly affects how much a liability claim ultimately pays out.

A simple example

Two drivers collide at an intersection. A jury decides Driver A was 70% at fault and Driver B was 30% at fault. Driver B's damages are $200,000, so B recovers $200,000 × 0.70 = $140,000. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff 80% at fault with $100,000 of damages still recovers $20,000.

Don't confuse it with…

Contributory negligence is the older, harsher rule still used in a few states: if the injured party was even slightly at fault, they may recover nothing. Comparative negligence softened that by allowing partial recovery.

States generally apply one of these approaches:

• Pure comparative negligence — you can recover even if you were mostly at fault, just reduced by your percentage.
• Modified comparative negligence — recovery is barred at a set threshold. Under a 50% bar, a plaintiff 50% at fault recovers nothing; under a 51% bar, the same plaintiff can still recover half.

The exact rule varies by state, so the takeaway is conceptual: blame gets shared by percentage.

On the exam

Know the contrast: contributory (slight fault can bar recovery) versus comparative (recovery is reduced, not eliminated). Expect a question giving you fault percentages and asking how recovery is affected—remember the injured party's award shrinks by their own share of fault.