What legal concept reduces a claimant's recovery based on their own degree of negligence?

The concept that reduces a claimant’s recovery based on their own degree of negligence is known as comparative negligence. Under this legal principle, if a claimant is found to be partially at fault for the incident that caused their injury, their recovery amount is adjusted according to their percentage of fault. For instance, if a claimant is awarded $100,000 in damages but is found to be 20% responsible for the accident, their recovery would be reduced to $80,000.

In contrast, other legal concepts such as gross negligence pertain to severe instances of negligence that show a reckless disregard for the safety of others but do not directly involve the proportional reduction of damages. Assumption of risk involves situations where a claimant knowingly engages in activity that has an inherent risk, potentially barring recovery. Contributory negligence is a more stringent doctrine that can bar recovery altogether if the claimant is found to have any degree of fault, which is not as forgiving as comparative negligence. Hence, comparative negligence allows for a more equitable resolution in negligence cases by acknowledging and factoring in the claimant's own degree of fault.