States take different approaches to a plaintiff who is partly at fault. Under a comparative negligence approach, the plaintiff's recovery is:
Explanation
A comparative negligence approach reduces the award by the plaintiff's own share of fault: a $100,000 award to a plaintiff found 30% at fault becomes $70,000. The answer that bars recovery entirely once any fault is assigned describes contributory negligence, the older approach a small number of states still follow. Which approach governs is set by each state's law, so the two must not be treated as interchangeable.
This topic, taught in full in the California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide. California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent Study Guide — 2026 Edition — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 · 14-day refund →
Practice all 531 questions free — no signup required.
Own the complete California Property & Casualty Broker-Agent guide — PDF + EPUB, $24.99 →
Related questions on this topic
- In a liability policy, the coverage that responds to bodily injury or property damage the insured becomes legally obligated to pay is triggered by:
- An umbrella liability policy primarily provides:
- A grocer mops an aisle and leaves no warning sign; a shopper slips and fractures a wrist. Which pair of negligence elements does the unmarked wet floor most directly establish?
- A spectator sits behind the dugout at an amateur ball game, is struck by a foul ball, and sues the club. The club's strongest defence is that the spectator:
- A driver negligently blocks a traffic lane; twenty minutes later an unrelated drunk driver strikes the stopped car. The drunk driver's conduct is best described as:
- Absolute (strict) liability differs from ordinary negligence liability because the claimant does not have to prove:
Last reviewed: · editorial process