If Sarah was found partially responsible for her injury, which defense is being employed?

The defense being employed in this scenario is comparative negligence. This legal principle allows for the allocation of fault between parties involved in an incident, where each party's degree of responsibility for the injury is assessed. In this case, since Sarah is found to be partially responsible for her injury, comparative negligence is relevant because it acknowledges that multiple parties may share liability.

With comparative negligence, the court evaluates the extent to which Sarah contributed to her own injury, which can result in a reduction of damages awarded based on her percentage of fault. This means that if Sarah is deemed to be, for example, 30% at fault, her recovery from any other party would be reduced by that percentage.

This differs from other defenses such as contributory negligence, which can completely bar recovery if the injured party is found to be any percentage at fault, or assumption of risk, where a party knowingly exposes themselves to danger and thus is barred from recovery. Third-party negligence refers to the fault of another party not involved in the initial incident, which does not apply in this context since the focus is on Sarah's own responsibility.