What legal principle allows a party to reduce the damages they might receive based on their own fault?

The principle that allows a party to reduce the damages they might receive based on their own fault is known as comparative negligence. Under this legal doctrine, if a person is found to be partially at fault for an accident or injury, their damages can be reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% responsible for an incident, their compensation would be reduced by that percentage.

This approach encourages parties to take responsibility for their own actions while still allowing them to seek recovery for damages incurred due to the other party's negligence. It's important to note that the law varies by jurisdiction, but comparative negligence is a widely accepted standard in assessing damages in personal injury cases.

In contrast, contributory negligence can bar recovery entirely if the plaintiff is found to have any fault in the incident. Assumption of risk involves a participant knowingly engaging in risky behavior and waiving their right to claim damages that arise from that risk. Negligence per se is a legal doctrine that refers to an act that is considered negligent because it violates a statute or regulation. These definitions underscore how comparative negligence stands out in its ability to proportionally assess fault and damages.