Which principle has replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence?

The principle that has replaced the doctrine of contributory negligence is comparative negligence. This approach allows for a more equitable evaluation of fault in accidents or incidents that result in injury or damage. Under the doctrine of contributory negligence, if an injured party was found to have any degree of fault in causing their own injury, they would be barred from recovering any damages. This often led to harsh outcomes where even a small amount of negligence on the part of the claimant could result in no compensation for damages suffered.

In contrast, comparative negligence apportions the fault between the parties involved. This means that if a party is partially responsible for their injuries, their compensation can be reduced by their degree of fault. For example, if a claimant is found to be 30% responsible for an accident, they would only recover 70% of the total damages. This principle promotes fairness, as it takes into account the contribution of each party to the incident and allows for some recovery even when the claimant is not completely blameless.

The other concepts mentioned—vicarious liability, special damages, and general damages—do not directly address the issues surrounding contributory negligence or its replacement. Vicarious liability relates to the responsibility of one party for the actions of another, especially