Mississippi Property & Casualty Practice Exam 2025 – Your All-in-One Guide to Exam Success

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows for the allocation of fault among parties in a liability case. In jurisdictions that follow this principle, even if a person or entity contributed to the loss through their own negligence, they can still recover damages from another party. The amount they can recover, however, is reduced in proportion to their own level of fault. This means that if an individual is found to be 20% at fault for an accident but another party is found to be 80% at fault, the individual can recover 80% of the damages, reflecting the comparative allocation of responsibility.

In contrast, contributory negligence would completely bar a party from recovering damages if they are found to have any degree of fault, which does not support the idea of sharing responsibility for negligence. Vicarious negligence usually refers to situations where one party is held liable for the negligent actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships, and does not apply to individual liability based on one's own contributions to a loss. Imputed negligence often deals with the concept of liability being assigned to one individual for the negligent actions of another, rather than directly addressing the individual’s own neglect. Therefore, comparative negligence is the correct answer as it distinctly allows for a party to be