Under which rule can a plaintiff recover damages minus the plaintiff's own fault, regardless of the defendant's fault?

• A. Forty nine percent comparative rule
• B. Pure comparative negligence rule
• C. Fifty percent comparative negligence rule
• D. Assumption-of-risk defense

Answer: (B)

Under pure comparative negligence, damages are reduced by the plaintiff’s own degree of fault, and the defendant’s fault does not limit that reduction. This means the plaintiff can recover the portion of damages that is not caused by the plaintiff, no matter how large the defendant’s fault is.

For example, if total damages are 100,000 and the plaintiff is 30% at fault, the plaintiff would recover 70,000, even if the defendant’s fault is 70%. If the plaintiff is 90% at fault, the plaintiff would still recover 10,000. The key idea is that the reduction is solely based on the plaintiff’s fault, and the defendant’s fault doesn’t stop the recovery of the remainder.

The other rules involve thresholds or defenses that can cut off recovery based on the plaintiff’s own fault or on a separate defense. A 49% or 50% rule imposes a cutoff—if the plaintiff’s fault reaches that threshold, recovery can be denied or limited, so the defendant’s fault isn’t the sole determinant. The assumption-of-risk defense is an affirmative defense where the plaintiff’s knowledge of risk can bar recovery altogether, regardless of fault allocation.