Comparative Negligence
Comparative negligence apportions damages based on each party's fault. California follows "pure" comparative negligence under Li v. Yellow Cab (1975), allowing recovery even when more than 50% at fault.
Exam Tip
California = PURE comparative negligence. Even 99% at-fault plaintiff recovers 1%. "Yellow Cab = You still get paid."
What is Comparative Negligence?
Damages reduced by plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Li v. Yellow Cab (1975)
California adopted PURE comparative negligence:
| System | Rule |
|---|---|
| Pure | Recover regardless of fault percentage |
| Modified (50%) | Barred if 50%+ at fault |
| Modified (51%) | Barred if 51%+ at fault |
California Example
| Damages | Plaintiff Fault | Recovery |
|---|---|---|
| $100,000 | 10% | $90,000 |
| $100,000 | 50% | $50,000 |
| $100,000 | 90% | $10,000 |
Proposition 51 (1986)
- Economic damages: Joint and several
- Non-economic: Several only
Study This Term In
Related Terms
Assumption of Risk
Assumption of risk is a defense where plaintiff voluntarily encountered known risk. California distinguishes primary assumption (complete bar for inherent risks) and secondary (merged into comparative negligence) under Knight v. Jewett.
Negligence Per Se
Negligence per se establishes presumption of negligence when defendant violates statute designed to protect against type of harm suffered by plaintiff within protected class.
10 free AI interactions per day
Stay Updated
Get free exam tips and study guides delivered to your inbox.