What is a “comparative negligence” defense to a product liability claim?

A “comparative negligence” defense to a product liability claim is a legal defense used by a person or company that is being sued for a product defect or wrongful injury that was caused by their product. This defense shifts financial responsibility onto the plaintiff or injured party if they are found to be partially at fault. In California, the doctrine of comparative negligence uses a “pure” approach, meaning that plaintiffs can collect damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault for the incident. The purpose of a comparative negligence defense is to ensure that a plaintiff who is mostly at fault for their injury or damages does not receive a full amount of compensation from the defendant. California’s modified comparative negligence approach requires that a plaintiff’s fault be determined in order to calculate their total damages. If a plaintiff is found to be 50% or less responsible for the incident, they are eligible to receive damages that are reduced by the percentage of their fault. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be 20% responsible for an incident, then their damages award would be reduced by 20%.

Related FAQs

What is the doctrine of strict liability?
What are the types of defenses that may be raised by the defendant in a products liability claim?
What is a warning defect?
What is a class-action lawsuit?
Who can be held liable for a product defect?
What types of products are covered under Dangerous Products Law?
What is a “risk-utility” defense to a product liability claim?
What legal remedies are available in a product liability case?
What is the Consumer Product Safety Act?
Is there a time limit for filing a product liability claim?

What is a “comparative negligence” defense to a product liability claim?

Related FAQs

Related Blog Posts