Arizona Jury Instruction — 6.6.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense: Explained with Relevant Keywords The Arizona Jury Instruction 6.6.1 General Instruction addresses the concept of comparative negligence as a potential defense in civil lawsuits. Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine that allows the court to assign liability for damages based on the relative fault of each party involved in an accident or injury. Here is a detailed description of what this instruction entails, along with various types of comparative negligence defenses that may be applicable. 1. Definition: The instruction explains that comparative negligence refers to a method of distributing responsibility for damages among multiple parties involved in an accident or injury. It emphasizes that liability can be apportioned based on the degree of fault attributed to each party. 2. Explanation of Comparative Negligence Doctrine: The instruction provides a comprehensive overview of the comparative negligence doctrine, highlighting that it is applied to determine the extent to which each party contributed to the incident. It outlines that even if the plaintiff is partially at fault, they may still be entitled to recover damages from other negligent parties, but the compensation would be reduced proportionately to their own fault. 3. Burden of Proof: This part of the instruction clarifies that the burden of proof lies with the party asserting a comparative negligence defense. They must demonstrate that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the incident and subsequent damages. 4. Standard of Care: The instruction further explains that the plaintiff is required to exercise reasonable care to minimize the harm caused by their own negligence. If their actions fall short of this standard, it may negatively impact their ability to recover damages. 5. Types of Comparative Negligence Defenses: a. Pure Comparative Negligence: This approach allows for the plaintiff to recover damages even if they are deemed to be 99% at fault. The compensation is then reduced by the percentage of their attributed negligence. This serves as a more lenient form of comparative negligence. b. Modified Comparative Negligence: In this form, there are two variations: the 51% Bar Rule and the 50% Bar Rule. — 51% Bar Rule: The plaintiff is barred from recovering any damages if their fault exceeds 51% of the total responsibility. However, if their fault is equal to or less than 50%, they can recover damages proportionately reduced by their assigned percentage of fault. — 50% Bar Rule: Similar to the 51% Bar Rule, but the plaintiff is barred from recovery if their fault reaches or exceeds 50%, while still being eligible for compensation if their fault is 49% or less. The damages awarded are reduced by the percentage of fault. It's important to remember that these variations may be subject to specific state laws and the court's discretion, so consulting legal professionals for accurate guidance is essential. In summary, Arizona Jury Instruction 6.6.1 General Instruction — Comparative Negligence Defense offers guidance on how negligence is assessed and damages are apportioned in civil cases. By understanding the concept of comparative negligence and its various types, individuals involved in legal proceedings can better comprehend the potential outcomes and implications tied to this defense.