Talk:Comparative responsibility

This article was nominated for deletion on 16 September 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was Keep.

comparative responsibility[edit]

I started this page a few days ago, I'm working on it slowly. I hope to include more links and references and polish the organization of the page over the next few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mendelson (talk • contribs)

While I agree that this phrasing of the doctrine is much clearer, I can't find any sources that refer to the doctrine as "comparative responsibility." Comparative negligence is the common term in my experience. I've seen discussions referring to the "responsibilities" of the various parties, but they don't go so far as to name the doctrine as such. It seems to me that this article should be merged with Comparative negligence. Also there is a terrible lack of citation here. For example what jurisdictions refer to this as comparative fault? For that matter, who refers to it as comparative responsibility other than in the phrase "the comparative responsibility of the plaintiff?" Rkedge (talk) 19:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

==[edit]

This page should be taken with a grain of salt and contrasted with others defining the terms used as there is apparent inconsistency. Further, the whole idea of comparing fault between an intentional tortfeasor and a negligent plaintiff creates the very misleading impression that such an extraordinary case arises with some frequency. A citation to a real case would be helpful. In fact, the frequency of such cases is negligible [pun unintentional] and I think the whole subject is better explained on the page on comparative negligence. It should be noted I do not have any idea what I'm talking about.

--Yehhbut 16:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]