Which rule permits recovery of reduced damages when the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the other party's negligence?

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

Answer: (C)

The key idea is how fault is weighed to determine damages. The forty-nine percent rule is a form of modified comparative negligence that sets a clear threshold: the plaintiff may recover only if their own negligence is 49% or less. The amount recovered is the defendant’s share of fault reflected in the damages, so the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced to match the defendant’s greater responsibility.

For example, if total damages are $100 and the defendant is 51% at fault while the plaintiff is 49%, the plaintiff can recover $51 (the defendant’s share). If the plaintiff is 40% at fault and the defendant 60%, the plaintiff can recover $60. If the plaintiff’s fault is 50% or more, there is no recovery.

This rule precisely fits the idea of recovering a reduced amount when the plaintiff’s negligence is not greater than the other party’s negligence, because the payout is limited to reflecting the defendant’s proportionate fault and stops at a 49% cap for the plaintiff’s own fault. Pure comparative negligence would not impose this threshold, the fifty-percent rule would bar recovery at 50% or more, and assuming risk is a different concept altogether.