▁must ▁decide ▁the ▁degree ▁to ▁which ▁the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁neg lig ence ▁and ▁the ▁combined ▁neg lig ence ▁of ▁all ▁other ▁relevant ▁actors ▁all ▁contributed ▁to ▁cause ▁the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁dam ages . ▁It ▁is ▁a ▁modification ▁of ▁the ▁doctrine ▁of ▁contrib ut ory ▁neg lig ence ▁that ▁dis all ows ▁any ▁recovery ▁by ▁a ▁pla int iff ▁whose ▁neg lig ence ▁contributed ▁even ▁minim ally ▁to ▁causing ▁the ▁dam ages . ▁ ▁Ex plan ation ▁ ▁Prior ▁to ▁the ▁late ▁ 1 9 6 0 s , ▁only ▁a ▁few ▁states ▁had ▁adopted ▁the ▁system . ▁When ▁compar ative ▁neg lig ence ▁was ▁adopted , ▁three ▁main ▁versions ▁were ▁used . ▁The ▁first ▁was ▁called ▁" p ure " ▁compar ative ▁neg lig ence . ▁A ▁pla int iff ▁who ▁was ▁ 9 0 % ▁to ▁bl ame ▁for ▁an ▁accident ▁could ▁recover ▁ 1 0 % ▁of ▁his ▁losses . ▁( Of ▁course , ▁defend ants ▁who ▁suffered ▁inj uries ▁in ▁such ▁a ▁case ▁could ▁counter ▁claim ▁and ▁recover ▁ 9 0 % ▁of ▁losses ▁from ▁the ▁other ▁party .) ▁ ▁The ▁second ▁and ▁third ▁versions ▁are ▁l ump ed ▁together ▁in ▁what ▁is ▁called ▁" mod ified " ▁compar ative ▁neg lig ence . ▁One ▁variant ▁allows ▁pla int iffs ▁to ▁recover ▁" only " ▁if ▁the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁neg lig ence ▁is ▁" not ▁greater ▁than " ▁the ▁def endant ' s ▁( the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁neg