Which of the following is a defense used against a claim for negligence?

Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that is utilized as a defense against claims of negligence. It operates on the premise that if the injured party is also partially at fault for the incident that led to their injuries, their compensation may be reduced proportionally to their degree of fault. For instance, if a plaintiff is found to be 20% responsible for their injuries, their damages award would be decreased by that percentage. This method acknowledges the shared responsibility of both parties and encourages fairness in resolving negligence claims.

In contrast, strict liability does not require proof of negligence or fault; it is applicable in cases involving inherently dangerous activities. Vicarious liability pertains to holding one party responsible for the actions of another, often in employer-employee relationships, without the need to demonstrate direct negligence on the part of the employer. Actual damages refer to the real and quantifiable losses incurred due to negligence, but are not a defense against a negligence claim. Instead, they clarify what compensation is sought in a negligence case.