Which principle allows an injured party to recover damages despite their own part in causing the injury?

The principle that allows an injured party to recover damages despite their own part in causing the injury is known as comparative negligence. This concept acknowledges that both the injured party and the defendant may share responsibility for the incident and assigns a percentage of fault to each party. Under comparative negligence laws, the injured party’s recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault in contributing to the injury, but they are still entitled to pursue damages.

For example, if an individual was found to be 30% at fault in a car accident, they could still recover 70% of the damages from the other party involved. This approach promotes fairness by allowing parties to seek compensation while recognizing that multiple parties may contribute to the circumstances surrounding an injury.

In contrast, contributory negligence would prevent the injured party from recovering any damages if they were found to be even slightly at fault. Full negligence is not a recognized legal doctrine, and assumption of risk implies that the injured party knowingly engaged in a risky behavior and thus cannot claim damages. Therefore, comparative negligence is the most appropriate principle for allowing an injured party to recover damages despite their own contributions to the injury.