Under comparative negligence, how are damages allocated?

Under comparative negligence, damages are allocated based on the percentage of fault assigned to each party involved in an incident. This legal concept recognizes that multiple parties can share responsibility for an accident, and it seeks to fairly apportion the financial liability associated with the damages incurred.

For example, if one party is found to be 70% at fault for an accident and another party is 30% at fault, the damages awarded to the injured party would be reduced by the percentage that correlates to their own fault. This system allows for a more nuanced view of liability, as it does not assign all responsibility to a single party, enabling a more equitable resolution.

The other options do not effectively capture the principle of comparative negligence. The first option implies that one party bears all costs, while the second suggests an equal split, disregarding individual levels of fault. The fourth option relates damages to the severity of an injury rather than the proportionality of fault, which fails to address the central tenet of comparative negligence.