A civil-wrong concept defining liability rules for compensating harm or preventing wrongful interference with protected interests. It specifies required elements such as duty, prohibited conduct, causation, and legally cognizable harm or defines protection of commercial and intangible interests where applicable. It does not impose liability where the required element set is not satisfied or where recognized privileges or defenses apply. It allocates responsibility for injury or interference and shapes the scope and measure of monetary and equitable relief. The concept is generally stable, though doctrinal refinements and statutory updates may alter elements or defenses over time.

Principle

Liability is allocated proportionally: each party bears financial responsibility commensurate with their percentage of fault, so recovery equals total damages multiplied by the defendant's percentage of fault.

Demonstration

In a car collision where a jury finds Driver A 70% at fault and Driver B 30% at fault, a plaintiff Driver B claiming $100,000 in damages would recover $70,000 under comparative negligence because the award is reduced by B's 30% share.

Misapplication

Applying comparative reduction to punitive damages that the jurisdiction intends to be independent of fault apportionment, or reducing damages when statute or case law provides a different formula, misapplies the doctrine.

Consequence

When applied correctly, comparative negligence permits partial recovery by plaintiffs proportionate to the defendant's responsibility, encouraging nuanced fault-finding and reflecting shared culpability in remedies.

Reversal

By contrast, a rule that entirely bars recovery if a plaintiff is ever at fault (contributory negligence) treats any plaintiff fault as a complete defense rather than a proportional reduction.

Boundary

Does not cover strict liability claims where fault is irrelevant unless the jurisdiction's statute specifically incorporates comparative fault; variations exist across jurisdictions (pure, modified thresholds) that change reduction rules.

Semantic Tension

Tension exists between comparative negligence and concepts like strict liability and vicarious liability: comparative fault focuses on personal culpability proportions, while other doctrines assign responsibility without reference to the plaintiff's negligence.

Synthesis

Comparative negligence is a proportional allocation rule in tort law: it measures each party's negligence, reduces a plaintiff's award by the plaintiff's percentage of fault, and thereby balances recovery with shared responsibility while varying by jurisdictional variants and statutory limits.