In comparative fault jurisdictions, how is recovery affected under strict liability?

In comparative fault jurisdictions, the application of the plaintiff's negligence in strict liability cases can be complex, and courts indeed vary in their approach. In strict liability situations, the defendant may be held liable regardless of fault for certain types of inherently dangerous activities or defective products. However, some jurisdictions allow a reduction in the plaintiff's recovery based on their own negligence if it contributed to the harm.

This leads to court decisions that reflect differing views on whether and how much a plaintiff's negligence should affect recovery in strict liability cases. Some courts may rule that a plaintiff’s negligence cannot diminish the recovery amount, maintaining that strict liability is intended to protect injured parties regardless of their own fault. Others might apply comparative fault principles, allowing for a reduction in recovery based on the plaintiff's contribution to the injury.

Thus, the idea that courts are divided on whether plaintiff's negligence reduces recovery in strict liability contexts is accurate, reflecting the inconsistent application of comparative fault principles across different jurisdictions.