Which doctrine bars recovery if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm?

Which doctrine bars recovery if the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the harm?

• A. Comparative Fault
• B. Contributory Negligence
• C. Implied Assumption Of Risk
• D. Express Assumption Of Risk

Answer: (B)

Contributory negligence is the idea that a plaintiff’s own lack of reasonable care can bar recovery. In pure contributory negligence systems, if the plaintiff’s negligence contributes to the harm at all, they can’t recover from the defendant, even if the defendant was also at fault. This differs from comparative fault, which still allows some recovery but reduces damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault. Assumption of risk theories—whether implied or express—center on the plaintiff knowingly taking on the risk; when valid, they can bar recovery for that reason, not simply because of the plaintiff’s own negligent conduct. The scenario described, where the plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to the harm and recovery is barred, aligns with contributory negligence.

Contributory negligence is the idea that a plaintiff’s own lack of reasonable care can bar recovery. In pure contributory negligence systems, if the plaintiff’s negligence contributes to the harm at all, they can’t recover from the defendant, even if the defendant was also at fault. This differs from comparative fault, which still allows some recovery but reduces damages in proportion to the plaintiff’s share of fault. Assumption of risk theories—whether implied or express—center on the plaintiff knowingly taking on the risk; when valid, they can bar recovery for that reason, not simply because of the plaintiff’s own negligent conduct. The scenario described, where the plaintiff’s own negligence contributes to the harm and recovery is barred, aligns with contributory negligence.