Do most states recognize some form of comparative negligence?

Most states do indeed recognize some form of comparative negligence. This legal doctrine allows for the apportioning of fault between parties in a negligence claim. Under comparative negligence, a plaintiff’s recovery for damages may be reduced by the percentage of their own fault in causing the injury or accident.

The system tends to vary by jurisdiction; some states employ pure comparative negligence, where a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, while others use modified comparative negligence, which prevents a plaintiff from recovering if their fault exceeds a certain threshold, typically 50% or 51%.

This approach contrasts with the all-or-nothing principle of contributory negligence, where any fault on the part of the plaintiff entirely bars recovery. By adopting comparative negligence, many states aim to promote fairness in legal outcomes and encourage responsible behavior, as each party is held accountable for their respective level of fault.

The other options imply that either not all states recognize this principle, or they limit its applicability to specific situations, which does not reflect the widespread acceptance and implementation of comparative negligence in many jurisdictions across the United States.