Which statement is true about modified (partial) comparative negligence jurisdictions?

In modified (partial) comparative negligence jurisdictions, a plaintiff may recover damages only if they are not more at fault than the defendant. This means that if the plaintiff is found to be equally at fault or less at fault than the defendant, they can recover damages, but if the plaintiff's percentage of fault exceeds that of the defendant, recovery is barred. This framework allows for a more nuanced approach to assigning fault and damages compared to a pure comparative negligence system, where recovery is allowed regardless of the percentage of fault.

In this context, the correct answer accurately reflects the legal standard in such jurisdictions, emphasizing the importance of the plaintiff’s degree of fault in relation to the defendant's. The statement highlights a key characteristic of modified comparative negligence—liability and recovery are directly linked to the levels of fault from both parties.

The other statements do not align with the principles of modified comparative negligence. For instance, suggesting that recovery is always allowed regardless of the plaintiff's fault misrepresents the balancing act inherent in this system. Similarly, claiming that it favors defendants in all circumstances oversimplifies the nuances of fault allocation in these cases. Lastly, the notion that recovery is available if both parties are at fault does not accurately capture the primary condition of the plaintiff's