When damages are reduced in proportion to the degree of negligence, this concept is referred to as:

The concept being described is known as comparative negligence, which is a legal principle used to allocate damages in a case involving multiple parties whose negligence contributed to the injuries or damages suffered. In jurisdictions that apply comparative negligence, each party's compensation can be reduced based on their percentage of fault in causing the accident or injury.

For instance, if a plaintiff is found to be 30% at fault for their own injuries, their recovered damages will be reduced by that percentage. This method allows for a more equitable distribution of damages in personal injury cases, depending on the degree of each party's negligence. It acknowledges that more than one party can be responsible for an accident, and the recovery amount is adjusted accordingly.

In contrast, contributory negligence, another legal principle, can completely bar a plaintiff from recovering any damages if they are found to have any share of fault, which is a much harsher standard. Mitigated damages do refer to the obligation of a party to minimize damages after a wrongful act, but it doesn’t fit the context of negligence allocation. Vicarious liability pertains to the responsibility one party holds for the actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships, rather than the proportional reduction of damages due to negligence. Comparing these terms clarifies why