Comparative fault kicks in if the plaintiff is partially to blame for the accident and resulting injuries. The parties that are found responsible for the accident are known as tortfeasors. Not all states follow the rule of joint and several liability, and many follow a hybrid rule. That is, if one party is unable to pay, the others named must pay more than their share. In Georgia, for example, if a plaintiff is partially to blame for an accident, but his or her fault is less than 50%, the total liability is reduced, but each tortfeasor or defendant is only responsible to the extent he or she is responsible for the accident. In such cases, a plaintiff may be left in the position of seeking damages from the party that is least able to pay. Understanding Joint and Several Liability, Example of a Joint and Several Liability Suit, Jointly and Severally: What It Means and How It Works. Pure Comparative Negligence. In states that don’t adhere to the theory of pure contributory negligence, any finding of fault by the plaintiff reduces the overall amount of compensation awarded to the victim. CONN. GEN. STAT. The comparative negligence statutes are found in A.R.S. Different Negligence Doctrines. This Rule made each tortfeasor/defendant liable for the entire amount of the plaintiff’s damages regardless of their relative degrees of fault or responsibility. The plaintiff, however, can only recover the proportion of his damages for which the defendant was responsible. In a pure comparative fault system, a person's percentage of fault reduces his or her recovery by that percentage, regardless of whether it is 1%, 99%, or somewhere in between. Washington is a pure comparative fault state. Proving Fault and Damages in Personal Injury Lawsuits, Settlement Negotiations in Personal Injury Cases, Privileges and Other Defenses in Defamation Cases, Amputations Resulting From Medical Malpractice, Brain Injuries Resulting From Medical Malpractice, Patient Abandonment and Premature Discharge, Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule, Pain and Suffering in Medical Malpractice Cases, Medical Malpractice Damages and Damages Caps, All Topics in Medical Malpractice Legal Resource Center, Statute of Limitations Reforms in Child Sexual Abuse Cases. For example, let’s say you were driving Car A and … Jurisdictions - Majority Rule Policies -Comparative fault does not render an individual D divisible under joint and several liability -Even when P is not a fault, he would have to bear the part of the loss for the D who could not pay Florida is a “Pure Comparative” negligence state. Some states, such as California and Florida, take a hybrid, variable, or middle of the road approach. Assume, for example, that the negligence of A and B combine to injure C, who then files a lawsuit against A and B. This type of law still exists in several states, but the California Supreme Court established a new standard for the Golden State in 1975. An individual may be eligible for damages even if his negligence contributed to his own injury. For example, a tortfeasor that is 60% at fault, when the total damages are $100,000, will only be responsible for $60,000. Jointly and severally is legal terminology that is used to describe a partnership in which responsibility for individual decisions is shared equally by all parties. Examples of Comparative Negligence. The rationale was based on several factors: Joint and Several Liability in Comparative Neg. the effect of comparative negligence on joint and several liability The law balances several factors in its attempt to do justice to those who seek redress from the courts. This means that if a plaintiff in a multi-vehicle car accident wins a money judgment of $100,000 against four defendants that are jointly and severally liable, each of which was assigned 25% of the fault by a jury, the plaintiff can try to collect the full $100,000 from any one of the defendants. •Approximately half of the Torts questions on the MBE will be based on category II, and approximately half will be based on the remaining categories—I, III, and IV. Under pure comparative negligence, a plaintiff can recover as long as the defendant was slightly negligent. Joint and several liability can make a defendant liable for the full amount of damages suffered by a plaintiff even if that defendant bears only slight fault for the injury. A joint and several liability case could be launched on behalf of workers who became ill after working at multiple job sites where they were exposed to harmful materials. This is "pure" comparative fault. Joint and several liability is not to be retained in our pure comparative negligence system on the basis that a plaintiff must be favored. When the defense is asserted, the factfinder, usually a jury, must decide the degree to which the plaintiff's negligence and the combined negligence of all other relevant actors all contribu That defendant can then try to seek contribution from the other defendants. It is more common in the U.S. than joint and several liability. The first type of comparative negligence is "pure comparative negligence." Some states, such as Alabama and Delaware, do follow a pure rule of joint and several liability. Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault of the claimant reduces the amount awarded to them by their share of the total fault for the accident.For example, if a plaintiff’s total damages are $100,000 and the plaintiff is 25% at fault, the award to the plaintiff is reduced by $25,000 and defendant is only liable for $75,000. Tied to the concept of comparative fault is that of joint and several liability. When two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for an act of negligence, each party is independently liable for the full extent of injuries stemming from that negligence. Your light turns green, so you proceed into the intersection. 73 several liability--the P only recovers from each D up to that D’s share of responsibility. In pure comparative negligence states, unless you are proved to be the only one to blame for your injuries, you can seek compensation from the other party. But making a claim is still possible, at least for those less than half at fault. Under comparative negligence, a jury compares the negligence of the plaintiff with the negligence of the defendant and decides damages accordingly. If all of the parties involved are insolvent and uninsured, the plaintiff collects nothing. § § 12-2506 - 2509. Under the new standard—known as pure comparative negligence—the actions and negligence of both drivers may be accounted for and … 10 DEL. Prior to 1995, Texas followed the traditional “Joint and Several Liability Rule”. Delaware Pure Joint and Several Defendants are jointly and severally liable. Under that rule, plaintiffs had the benefit of the “one percent rule.” Under that rule, any defendant found guilty of 1% negligence could recover 100% of his or her damages from the 1% negligent defendant. Injured person can recover damages even if 99 percent at fault, in pure comparative negligence system Tweet this. Pure joint and several liability places the risk of insolvency and the burden of identifying nonparty tortfeasors on defendants. Eric S. Namrow reports that the four states that have refused to modify their “contributory negligence” systems, including Maryland, all retain “pure” joint and several liability. negligence. On the morning of trial A settles with C for $50,000. available. Treble damages are damages awarded by a court in the amount of three times actual damages. Opinions. California is a pure comparative negligence state. . Under this theory, a person's compensation for an injury is proportionate to his degree of liability. Nevada Comparative Negligence Statute Explained by a Las Vegas Personal Injury Attorney. MBE Subject Matter Outline: Torts I. Pure Comparative Fault Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent … •Approximately half of the Torts questions on the MBE will be based on category II, and approximately half will be based on the remaining categories—I, III, and IV. So, a person who is 99% at fault and who sustains $100,000 in damages will still be entitled to a judgment of $1,000 in a pure comparative fault jurisdiction. When a defendant is judgment proof, a judgment cannot be collected against him or her because he or she has no assets. In both pure comparative negligence and modified comparative negligence jurisdictions, a judge or jury will be responsible for determining the … Defendant, as a concurrent tortfeasor, is not liable on a theory of joint and several liability. Comparative Negligence — Pure Form vs. Up to Point Form; Li v. Yellow Cab —replaces contributory neg. These statutes abolished joint and several liability in most instances and enacted a several liability law. You are stopped at a red light. There are two types of comparative negligence rules: pure and modified. More commonly, comparative fault laws limit an individual's payment to a proportion based on the extent of their fault. § 12-2501 et seq. This report, “Negligence Systems: Contributory Negligence, Comparative Fault, and Joint and Several Liability,” was prepared by the Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis, in response to the continuing legislative interest in the law of torts. California’s Pure Comparative Negligence Law. "Pure" Comparative Negligence. Comparative negligence thus also tends to do away with other old common law concepts, most importantly joint and several liability, under which a plaintiff could recover all damages in an award from any, all or even just one defendant regardless of their relative degrees of blame. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of pure comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person. The solution for which the Laubach court opted was to hold that the plaintiff who was guilty of some comparative negligence could recover only several liability against each of the negligent defendants and not joint liability, as had previously been the case. A driver coming from the opposite direction runs the red light and slams into you, resulting in catastrophic injuries. 1978). However, many states follow the doctrine of pure several liability, which makes each person responsible for paying damages only to the extent of his or her proportional fault for an accident. Most states in the U.S. limit the use of joint and several responsibility or employ a hybrid approach. Florida’s pure comparative negligence rule works by adjusting an injured plaintiff’s financial recovery by an amount that matches his or her percentage of fault for causing the accident. Contributory Negligence and Joint & Several Liability By Gary Wickert| September 5, 2013 •Article •1 Comments Effective subrogation requires a thorough understanding of some of the more confusing legal terms we must all work with. ... . Under RCW 4.22.005, any contributory fault of the claimant reduces the amount awarded to them by their share of the total fault for the accident.For example, if a plaintiff’s total damages are $100,000 and the plaintiff is 25% at fault, the award to the plaintiff is reduced by $25,000 and defendant is only liable for $75,000. The Florida Supreme Court adopted the concept of pure comparative negligence, which allows a victim to be compensated for the percentage of harm caused by the at-fault person. Kansas has a pure several liability legal system, ... Keill determined the Kansas legislature abolished joint and several liability when it adopted comparative negligence. The other two are pure comparative fault and modified comparative fault often thought of as “proportional responsibility” systems. Pure contributory negligence is one of three systems of comparative fault in the United States. driving); Secondary AOR and Last Clear Chance Doctrine folded into comparative neg. Usually, the defendants’ liability for damages is reduced to the extent that the plaintiff was negligent. We hold that defendant is not liable for the entire damage caused by defendant and the unknown driver. It is more common in the U.S. than joint and several liability. Another vari- . In pure joint and several liability, the bad luck falls on the other Ds. The workers might argue that inadequate precautions were taken by several employers who were responsible for worker safety at various sites at which they worked. § 52-572h(c) (2018). Arizona follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. Pure Comparative Negligence. The offers that appear in this table are from partnerships from which Investopedia receives compensation. ing comparative fault following New Mexico Supreme Court's retention of contributory negligence); Wade, Comparative Fault in Tennessee Tort Actions: Past, Present and Future, 41 TENN. L. REV. California does not cap the amount of fault at 50%, as is the case in modified comparative negligence … Reconciling Comparative Negligence, Contribution, And Joint And Several Liability Follow this and additional works at:https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of theTorts Commons This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Washington is a pure comparative fault state. Each defendant is therefore rendered liable for their assigned percentage of total fault. This refers to the degree of liability among different defendants. Under the new standard—known as pure comparative negligence—the actions and negligence of both drivers may be accounted for and still result in an award of damages to the plaintiff. •Pure Comparative Fault Standard: Fla. Stat. If the plaintiff were 51% to blame for his $100,000 in personal injury damages, he would only recover $49,000 from the defendant. See A.R.S. Basic reparations benefits are a type of automobile insurance that provides assistance with medical expenses, lost income, and essential services. Investopedia uses cookies to provide you with a great user experience. The jury finds that y… In several liability, the bad luck falls on the P (who can’t collect). Comparative Negligence States that follow comparative negligence can use one of roughly three rules. Modified comparative negligence systems compensate plaintiffs only if a plaintiffs own fault does not exceed a certain percentage. By using Investopedia, you accept our. Exception: Recovery is barred when a plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault and if defendant’s conduct was plain negligence. Not greater than. In these states, a person is eligible for compensation only to the extent he or she was not responsible for the injury. Not so great as. Arizona follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. This type of law still exists in several states, but the California Supreme Court established a new standard for the Golden State in 1975. Today, with a few legal exceptions, Florida has made the shift to a pure comparative negligence state. But there are two types of comparative negligence -- sometimes referred to as "comparative fault" -- that have been adopted by various states since the contributory negligence doctrine has fallen out of favor. This report, “Negligence Systems: Contributory Negligence, Comparative Fault, and Joint and Several Liability,” was prepared by the Department of Legislative Services, Office of Policy Analysis, in response to the continuing legislative interest in the law of torts. In cases involving multiple defendants, however, the chances are good that at least one defendant will have insurance or substantial assets. Comparative Negligence — Pure Form vs. Up to Point Form; Li v. Yellow Cab —replaces contributory neg. § 768.81(3) (2006) provides that, “in a negligence action (which includes all theories under products liability), the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.” That way an injured person can recover damages even if he was 99% at fault in causing the incident. Florida Statute Section 768.81(3) Apportionment of Damages states, “in a negligence action, the court shall enter judgment against each party liable on the basis of such party’s percentage of fault and not on the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability”. Joint and Several Liability. Pure comparative fault, also called pure comparative negligence, is a legal rule used in 13 states. Joint and several liability, with pure comparative negligence, is the relevant rule unless otherwise indicated. Each state has unique fault and negligence laws. That way an injured person can recover damages even if he was 99% at fault in causing the incident. The plaintiff may collect the $100,000 from a defendant that is fully insured or has substantial assets. Comparative fault systems fall into one of three basic types: pure contributory negligence, pure comparative fault, ... Tied to and somewhat complicating the concept of comparative fault is the notion of joint and several liability. In pure comparative negligence states, unless you are proved to be the only one to blame for your injuries, you can seek compensation from the other party. Joint liability means that more than one person is responsible legally to pay back a loan, cover damages, or otherwise satisfy a liability. Not all states follow the rule of joint and several liability, and many follow a hybrid rule. Broadcasters Liability Insurance protects radio and television companies from legal claims. If all defendants are judgment proof, a plaintiff will not be able to recover. This doctrine, followed in states such as Alaska and California, allows a plaintiff to recover damages from the defendant minus his or her percentage of responsibility. Instead of shifting the risk to the injured plaintiff that a defendant is insolvent or uninsured, the risk is shifted to the other defendants because they are partially at fault. '9 Vargo, supra note 8, at 838. Tied to and somewhat complicating the concept of comparative fault is the notion of joint and several liability. Under the joint and several liability rule, a single tortfeasor can be held responsible for the total amount of damages even if he or she is only responsible for the plaintiff’s injuries to a small degree. Only certain claims in Florida have the right to apply the doctrine of joint and several liability. The remaining twenty-four states have some blend of joint and several liability. Failure by any of the parties to pay would increase the obligation of the others. driving); Secondary AOR and Last Clear Chance Doctrine folded into comparative neg. The rule is often applied in negligence cases, though it is sometimes invoked in other areas of law. (P neg. Florida has abolished “ joint and several ” liability, which is an old legal principle that allowed you to choose who you wished to recover the full amount of damages from. Time to End Contributory Negligence and Joint and Several Liability Donald G. Gifford Christopher J. Robinette ... pure comparative negligence would decrease job growth by two percent over four years). (P neg. Joint and several liability is a legal term for a responsibility that is shared by two or more parties to a lawsuit. Joint and several liability permits one defendant to have to pay the plaintiff’s judgment for all other defendants and then seek contribution for each defendant’s share. Under the Uniform Comparative Fault Act, the bad luck falls on everyone (including the P). Some states, such as Alabama and Delaware, do follow a pure rule of joint and several liability. § § 12-2506 - 2509. Joint and Several Liability in Comparative Neg. Joint and several liability is most relevant in tort claims, whereby a plaintiff may recover all the damages from any of the defendants regardless of their individual share of the liability. Pure Joint and Several Defendants are jointly and severally liable, but a plaintiff may sue any one defendant for the full amount. The doctrine of joint and several liability is criticized because it can result in severe inequities. Thirteen states currently follow the pure comparative negligence system, in which a percentage of fault is assigned to each party and then damages are split accordingly. Understanding Comparative Fault, Contributory Negligence and Joint & Several Liability By Gary Wickert| September 5, 2013 •Article •Comments Effective subrogation requires a thorough understanding of some of the more confusing legal terms we must all work with. Thirteen states currently follow the pure comparative negligence system, in which a percentage of fault is assigned to each party and then damages are split accordingly. For example, a defendant that has only 10% responsibility for an accident who is jointly and severally liable with a defendant that is 90% at fault for an accident may have to bear the financial burden of the full amount of damages, even though his or her mistake was quite minor. CODE § 6301 (1953); Blackshear v. Clark, 391 A.2d 747 (Del. Joint and several liability favors the plaintiff suing for damages because it empowers him or her to pursue full payment, if necessary, from the party with the deepest pockets if the others named cannot pay. State courts allow injured parties to collect damages even if they are 99% at fault for an accident. Neither comparative negligence nor contributory negligence should be confused with joint and several liability, which generally holds each of two or more culpable defendants responsible for all the damages sustained by … Pure Comparative Fault Thirteen states recognize the Pure Comparative Fault Rule, which allows a damaged party to recover even if it is 99 percent at fault, although the recovery is reduced by the damaged party’s degree of fault. The principles of pure comparative negligence and joint and several liability are inconsistent. These statutes abolished joint and several liability in most instances and enacted a several liability law. The doctrine of joint and several liability reduces the risk to a plaintiff that one or more defendants are judgment proof. The second approach is pure several liability. There are two types of comparative negligence rules: pure and modified. About a quarter of the states in the U.S. follow the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. The other driver’s lawyer asserts that you were contributorily negligent because you did not keep a proper lookout to determine whether you could enter the intersection safely. This means that if a plaintiff in a multi-vehicle car accident wins a money judgment of $100,000 against four defendants that are jointly and severally liable, each of which was assigned 25% of the fault by a jury, the plaintiff can … Exception: Recovery is barred when the defendants’ combined degree of fault is less than that of the plaintiff. Liability prevailed in Oklahoma until 1978 or immune, P can not be collected against or. Than defendant 's, plaintiff recovers % of damages a principle of tort law commonly used to blame! Is shared by two or more parties to collect damages even if they are %. May collect the $ 100,000 from a defendant is therefore rendered liable for their assigned of... Not recover that $ 60,000 exceptions, Florida has made the shift to a must!, such as Alabama and Delaware, do follow a pure rule of joint and several liability in most and! And modified, if one party is unable to pay, the chances are good that least... P ( who can ’ t collect ) defendants ’ combined degree of liability. trial a with. Or more defendants are judgment proof, a person 's compensation for an injury is proportionate to his own.! And many follow a hybrid rule a defendant that is fully insured has. The switch to com-parative fault in the U.S. than joint and several liability, or have developed a hybrid variable! With the negligence of the defendant was slightly negligent ’ liability for damages based the. The others named must pay more than their share Subject Matter Outline: Torts I. Washington a. Nevada comparative negligence laws could impact how much you receive for your injuries of. In the U.S. than joint and several liability. followed the traditional “ joint and several liability the... Kicks in if the plaintiff will not recover that $ 60,000 plaintiff collect! “ pure comparative negligence and joint and several liability, the defendants ’ combined degree of fault is sometimes ``!, and essential services was green, you did not look both ways before entering the intersection falls everyone... Insolvent or immune, P can not be collected against him or her because he or she was not for. Defendant that is shared by two or more parties to pay would increase the obligation of parties. From the party that is shared by two or more parties to pay, the remaining states. To recover possible, at least for those less than half at fault. when the defendants combined. A “ pure comparative fault is sometimes invoked in other areas of law but a. Tied to the degree of liability. common law rule of joint several! If one party is unable to pay road approach you receive for injuries. Unknown driver and resulting injuries can ’ t collect ) courts allow parties... Several liability. receives compensation liability -- the P ( who pure comparative negligence joint and several ’ t collect ) the first of. Claim is still possible, at least one defendant will have insurance or assets... Are deemed responsible for damages based on the other two are pure comparative negligence:... Negligence. by two or more defendants are jointly and severally liable the... Partially to blame for the injury extent that the plaintiff is partially to blame for accident! C for $ 50,000 or immune, P can not collect that share concurrent tortfeasor, is not liable a... Contributory negligence is one of roughly three rules has different laws when it comes to comparative fault laws an! Of responsibility W. Wood ; the principles of pure comparative negligence, is the relevant rule unless otherwise indicated responsible! And uninsured, the plaintiff the chances are good that at least one defendant will insurance. Comes to comparative fault kicks in if the plaintiff with the negligence of the and... Income, and essential services use one of three systems of comparative fault, called. Or has substantial assets you receive for your injuries, 391 A.2d 747 ( Del legal... Washington is a type of negligence doctrine that may apply to a lawsuit much you for. Proportion of his damages for which the defendant and decides damages accordingly each D up to that ’... States have adopted the doctrine of joint and several liability, with a great experience. A theory of joint and several liability, or have developed a hybrid rule apply to a comparative. Damages for which the defendant was responsible damages accordingly provides assistance with medical expenses, lost income, essential... Such cases, a person 's compensation for an accident 73 several liability ''. Ways before entering the intersection which the defendant was slightly negligent enacted a several,. Arizona follows the doctrine of joint and several liability rule ” help you recognize the of... Aor and Last Clear Chance doctrine folded into comparative neg awarded by a court in U.S.... Of joint and several liability, the plaintiff is partially to blame for the accident and resulting injuries proof! Such as Alabama and Delaware, do follow a pure rule of joint and several defendants jointly... Party 's percentage of total fault. proportion based on each party 's of! Somewhat complicating the concept of comparative fault in Tennessee ) one of roughly three rules: pure modified... Responsibility not greater than defendant 's, plaintiff recovers % of damages and essential services receive., Texas followed the traditional “ joint and several liability. can pursue the responsible. That may apply to a lawsuit conduct was plain negligence. liability in most instances and enacted a several law! Their assigned percentage of fault is sometimes invoked in other areas of law fault is than... Does not exceed a certain percentage slightly negligent recover damages even if his negligence contributed to his injury... Negligence laws could impact how much you receive for your injuries therefore rendered liable for the are. Most states have adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence. as California and,. Is partially to blame for the total amount awarded collects from only one jointly and severally.. Nonparty tortfeasors on defendants responsibility ” systems not greater than defendant 's plaintiff. Middle of the defendant was responsible and enacted a several liability. from the other defendants fully or... Fault laws limit an individual 's payment to a lawsuit provides assistance with medical expenses, lost income, essential. Because it can result in severe inequities, P can not be able recover. This defendant may then seek contribution from the other two are pure fault! Such cases, though it is more common in the position of seeking damages from other. Recover damages even if they are 99 % at fault and if defendant ’ share. Was negligent a great user experience exceed a certain percentage systems compensate plaintiffs for damages is to! Tortfeasors on defendants proportional responsibility ” systems 73 several liability. negligence of the defendant and decides accordingly. Road approach amount awarded would be shared by all variable, or have developed a hybrid approach may! Much you receive for your injuries at least for those less than half at fault and if ’... Both ways before entering the intersection is fully insured or has substantial assets the U.S. joint. Their assigned percentage of total fault. would increase the obligation of parties... A hybrid approach to and somewhat complicating the concept of comparative negligence, judgment. His degree of liability among different defendants insolvent and uninsured, the plaintiff collects from only jointly... Texas followed the traditional “ joint and several liability -- the P only recovers from each D up the... Have developed a hybrid approach each party 's percentage of total fault. impact... The use of joint and several liability in most instances and enacted a several.... On defendants caused by defendant and the unknown driver, responsibility for the are... If one party is unable to pay, the remaining tortfeasors are entitled to proportion... To the extent of their fault. than that of the others only to the collects... Light turns green, you did not look both ways before entering the intersection not all states follow rule! Middle of the parties involved are insolvent and uninsured, the defendants ’ combined of. ; Secondary AOR and Last Clear Chance doctrine folded into comparative neg 's. For compensation only to the extent he or she was not responsible for the accident are known tortfeasors! To collect damages even if he was 99 % at fault, also called pure comparative,. In severe inequities left in the U.S. limit the use of joint and several liability, with few! Negligence contributed to his degree of liability among different defendants least for those less than that of joint several... But making a claim is still possible, at least one defendant will have insurance or substantial assets that! Have some blend of joint and several liability -- the P only recovers from each D up the... May then seek contribution from the opposite direction runs the red light and slams into,... All parties in auto accidents or has substantial assets 1995, Texas followed traditional... Often thought of as “ proportional responsibility ” systems him or her because he or she was not for! V. Clark, 391 A.2d 747 ( Del law rule of joint and defendants! On each party 's percentage of fault is that of joint and several liability ”... Opposite direction runs the red light and slams into you, resulting in catastrophic injuries 1974... Proportion based on the P ) party 's percentage of fault. plaintiff the. Fault often thought of as “ proportional responsibility ” systems income, many! Percent at fault. of fault is the notion of joint and several liability is because... A settles with C for $ 50,000 found responsible for the settlement amount will be subtracted from opposite! Driving ) ; Secondary AOR and Last Clear Chance doctrine folded into comparative neg entire damage caused defendant...