Which of the following is a statutory defense?

Comparative negligence is recognized as a statutory defense in many jurisdictions, including Nebraska. This legal doctrine allows a court to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in an accident or injury. Instead of a situation where one party is completely liable for damages, comparative negligence acknowledges that multiple parties may share responsibility, and the damages awarded can be adjusted based on the degree of each party’s fault.

This shifts the focus from strict liability to a more equitable assessment of responsibility, allowing plaintiffs to potentially recover damages even if they bear some fault, albeit their recovery may be reduced by their degree of fault. This approach is particularly pertinent in modern tort law as it aims for fairness in civil liability cases, ensuring that individuals are not completely barred from recovery due to a minor contribution to the cause of their injuries.

In contrast, the other options, such as intervening cause, contributory negligence, and assumption of risk, while they are also defenses in tort law, do not have the same statutory basis that comparative negligence does in many jurisdictions. Intervening cause addresses situations where a secondary event contributed to the injury, contributory negligence is a more traditional approach that completely bars plaintiff recovery if they share any fault, and assumption of risk involves the idea that a person knowingly takes