Which doctrine requires both parties to share financial responsibility for bodily injury or property damage according to their respective degrees of fault?

• A. Comparative negligence
• B. Contributory negligence
• C. Last clear chance doctrine
• D. Negligence per se

Answer: (A)

Comparative negligence allocates damages based on how much each party contributed to the harm. Each side pays a share of the loss in proportion to fault, so your recovery is reduced by your own degree of responsibility. For example, if you are 30% at fault and the other party is 70% at fault, damages are divided with you bearing 30% and the other party 70% of the costs. Some jurisdictions use pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even when you’re mostly at fault, while others use a modified form that limits recovery if your fault exceeds a certain threshold (such as 50% or 51%).

This contrasts with contributory negligence, which would bar you from recovering if you share any fault at all. The last clear chance doctrine is an old rule about who had the last opportunity to avoid harm, used to defeat certain defenses in specific situations. Negligence per se means a violation of a statute establishes breach of duty, but it doesn’t address how fault is apportioned between parties.