Comparative negligence is a modern theory of negligence which purports that it is reasonable and just for a judge or jury to ascribe a particular percentile of fault to all parties of a product liability case (such as 80% responsibility to the producer and 20% responsibility to the distributor of the product). Is this theory sound? Is it truly possibly to accurately reflect degrees of fault in the form of a percentage of fault? Some modern legal theorist advocate doing away with such percentages and, instead, simply stating that all parties at fault shall be deemed to be equally at fault in all circumstances. Is this a better idea?Why or why not?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Evaluation of Comparative Negligence The theory of comparative negligence is a legal approach that seeks to assign a percentage of fault to each party ... View the full answer