Trial Practice
Trial Strategy
The argument presents evidence of the plaintiff's own conduct contributing to the injury, seeking an allocation that reduces or bars recovery depending on the jurisdiction's comparative fault system.
Modified systems bar recovery above a threshold.
Alternative Names:
Comparative Negligence Argument, Fault Allocation Argument
Why it Matters?
The threshold structure creates a strategic asymmetry in modified comparative fault states, since pushing the plaintiff's allocation above fifty or fifty-one percent bars recovery entirely rather than merely reducing it. That makes the argument worth substantial investment where the facts support it. The countervailing risk is that arguing plaintiff fault while denying any defect can read as inconsistent, which requires careful framing.
Frequently Confused with
Related terms
Frequently asked questions
Why does the threshold matter?
What is the framing risk?
