Which defense to negligence bars a plaintiff's recovery when the plaintiff contributed to the harm?

• A. Res ipsa loquitur
• B. Contributory negligence
• C. Last clear chance doctrine
• D. Exclusive control

Answer: (B)

Contributory negligence is the defense that bars recovery when the plaintiff’s own fault contributed to the harm. If the plaintiff failed to take reasonable steps to protect themselves or engaged in unsafe behavior that helped cause the injury, many systems of law would deny or significantly reduce damages, especially in pure contributory negligence jurisdictions where any degree of plaintiff fault defeats recovery. In modern practice, many places use comparative negligence, which still considers the plaintiff’s fault but splits the damages rather than wholly barring recovery, yet the underlying idea remains: the plaintiff’s own fault matters in whether compensation is allowed.

Res ipsa loquitur involves inferring negligence from the nature of the accident and does not hinge on the plaintiff’s conduct; it’s about showing the defendant’s likely fault. The last clear chance doctrine is a salvage principle in some old contributory negligence schemes that lets a plaintiff recover if the defendant had the last opportunity to avoid harm, so it can preserve some recovery rather than bar it. Exclusive control is a criterion often tied to res ipsa loquitur, indicating the instrumentality was under the defendant’s exclusive control, not a stand-alone defense that bars recovery due to the plaintiff’s negligence.