In pure comparative negligence jurisdictions, how are damages calculated for a plaintiff?

In pure comparative negligence jurisdictions, the calculation of damages for a plaintiff is based on the principle that a plaintiff's recovery is adjusted according to their own level of fault in the incident. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for their injuries, their total damages awarded will be reduced based on the percentage of their fault.

For instance, if a plaintiff suffers $100,000 in damages but is found to be 30% at fault for the incident, they would only be able to recover 70% of their total damages, resulting in a recovery of $70,000. This system allows for a more equitable allocation of damages, recognizing the shared responsibility that parties may have in causing an accident.

The other options do not align with the principles of pure comparative negligence. Fixed damages regardless of fault do not account for the plaintiff's contribution to their injuries. Multiplying damages by a percentage of fault misinterprets how the reductions are applied. Lastly, splitting total damages equally with the defendant does not reflect the nuances of comparative fault and would not accurately compensate a plaintiff according to their actual losses adjusted by their own negligence.