Comparative negligence is a legal defense that allows defendants in product liability cases to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury, thereby reducing the amount of damages they are liable for.

Strict liability is not a type of comparative negligence defense. It is a legal principle that holds manufacturers strictly liable for injuries caused by their defective products, regardless of the plaintiff's negligence.

Under the doctrine of comparative negligence, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault that is attributed to them. If a plaintiff is found to be 20% at fault, their recovery will be reduced by 20%.

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, the primary factor that courts consider when determining the plaintiff's percentage of fault is their knowledge of the product's risks. This includes whether the plaintiff was aware of the product's potential dangers and whether they took reasonable steps to avoid those dangers.

Increased recovery is not a potential consequence of a plaintiff being found comparatively negligent. The other options are all potential consequences, depending on the jurisdiction and the specific facts of the case.

In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff can recover damages even if they are found to be 99% at fault for their injury. Their recovery will simply be reduced by the percentage of fault that is attributed to them.

Texas is the only state that does not follow the pure comparative negligence rule. Instead, it follows the modified comparative negligence rule, which bars recovery if the plaintiff is found to be more than 50% at fault for their injury.

The most common threshold for barring a plaintiff's recovery in a modified comparative negligence jurisdiction is 50%. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be 50% or more at fault for their injury, they will be barred from recovering any damages.

Assumption of risk is not a complete defense to a product liability claim in all jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions, it is only a partial defense that reduces the plaintiff's recovery by the percentage of fault that is attributed to them.

A plaintiff who is forced to use a product because there is no other alternative is not assuming the risk of using the product. They are simply using the product out of necessity.

The main difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence is that contributory negligence bars recovery if the plaintiff is found to be any percentage at fault, while comparative negligence allows for reduced recovery even if the plaintiff is partially at fault.

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, if the plaintiff is found to be more at fault than the defendant, their recovery is barred completely.

The defendant's financial resources are not a factor that courts consider when determining the plaintiff's percentage of fault in a comparative negligence case.

In a comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff's recovery can be reduced to zero if they are found to be more than 50% at fault for their injury.

Statute of limitations is not a defense to a product liability claim. It is a procedural rule that bars a plaintiff from bringing a lawsuit after a certain period of time has passed.