Which legal principle reduces a plaintiff's recovery based on their degree of fault?

The legal principle that reduces a plaintiff's recovery based on their degree of fault is known as comparative negligence. This doctrine allows for a modification of the damages awarded based on the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff in relation to the total fault that contributed to the incident.

In a comparative negligence system, if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for their injuries, their recovery will be reduced by the percentage of their own fault. For example, if a jury determines that the plaintiff is 30% responsible for the accident, the damages awarded will be decreased by that 30%. This approach encourages personal responsibility and acknowledges that multiple parties can share liability in an incident.

This principle is favored in many jurisdictions because it tends to provide a fairer assessment of damages, as opposed to all-or-nothing approaches like contributory negligence, which can bar recovery completely if the plaintiff is found even slightly at fault.

Vicarious liability, on the other hand, pertains to holding one party responsible for the actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships. Strict liability involves holding a party liable for damages without proof of negligence or fault, particularly in cases of inherently dangerous activities or defective products.