When a plaintiff who has been injured in a car accident has been contributorily negligent—by travelling over the speed limit, for example—the court will reduce the size of the damages award accordingly. In a small number of American jurisdictions, however, if a plaintiff is contributorily negligent to even the slightest degree, the plaintiff’s recovery in a personal injury case is barred in its entirety. It’s all or nothing. The historical origins of such a rule relate to the idea that courts will not assist a wrongdoer. Which approach to the question of contributory negligence do you prefer, and why?