MBE Rules · Torts
Contributory vs. comparative negligence
The rule
Contributory negligence (minority): plaintiff's own negligence completely bars recovery. Pure comparative (majority of jurisdictions): plaintiff recovers reduced by own % fault, even if greater than 50%. Modified comparative: plaintiff barred if more than 50% (or 51%) at fault.
In plain English
In contributory negligence, if you were even a little at fault, you get nothing. In pure comparative, you can still get some money even if you're mostly at fault. In modified comparative, you get nothing if you're more than half at fault.
Worked example
A pedestrian jaywalks and gets hit by a speeding car. In a contributory negligence state, the pedestrian gets nothing. In a pure comparative state, they get damages reduced by their fault. In a modified comparative state, if the pedestrian is more than 50% at fault, they get nothing.
Memory hook
Contrib cuts, compare compensates. Contributory bars entirely; comparative adjusts for fault.
The trap
Students think: Any plaintiff negligence bars recovery. Wrong, because pure comparative allows recovery minus fault. Modified bars only if over 50%.
How examiners test it
The MBE loves: plaintiff slightly negligent + damages. Trap: students apply contributory, missing comparative jurisdiction where recovery is reduced, not barred.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.