What is the primary outcome of contributory negligence in jurisdictions that recognize this doctrine?

In jurisdictions that recognize contributory negligence, the primary outcome is that if the plaintiff is found to be even slightly at fault for their own injuries, their recovery is completely barred. This strict doctrine emphasizes that any degree of negligence by the plaintiff negates their ability to receive damages from the defendant.

This harsh rule is rooted in the principle that a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries sustained as a result of their own negligence, regardless of the defendant's actions. In contrast to comparative negligence systems, where a plaintiff's recovery may be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault, contributory negligence does not allow for any recovery if the plaintiff is found liable to any extent.

Understanding this principle is critical in tort law, as it underscores the importance of the parties’ comparative conduct and the implications it has on liability and recoverability. In contrast, the other options suggest varying degrees of fault and recovery, which are not applicable under the strict standard of contributory negligence.