lig ence ▁must ▁not ▁be ▁more ▁than ▁ 5 0 % ▁of ▁the ▁combined ▁neg lig ence ▁of ▁both ▁parties ). ▁ ▁The ▁other ▁variant ▁allows ▁pla int iffs ▁to ▁recover ▁" only ▁if " ▁the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁neg lig ence ▁is ▁" not ▁as ▁great ▁as " ▁the ▁def endant ' s ▁( the ▁pla int iff ' s ▁neg lig ence ▁must ▁be ▁less ▁than ▁ 5 0 % ▁of ▁the ▁combined ▁neg lig ence ). ▁The ▁apparently ▁minor ▁difference ▁between ▁the ▁two ▁modified ▁forms ▁of ▁compar ative ▁neg lig ence ▁is ▁thought ▁by ▁law y ers ▁handling ▁such ▁cases ▁to ▁be ▁significant , ▁as ▁jur ies ▁who ▁ordin arily ▁assign ▁degrees ▁of ▁fault ▁are ▁much ▁less ▁willing ▁to ▁award ▁dam ages ▁to ▁a ▁pla int iff ▁who ▁is ▁equally ▁at ▁fault ▁than ▁to ▁one ▁who ▁is ▁less ▁at ▁fault ▁than ▁the ▁def endant . ▁ ▁Cont rib ut ory ▁neg lig ence ▁doctrine ▁ ▁Some ▁states , ▁though , ▁still ▁use ▁the ▁contrib ut ory ▁neg lig ence ▁doctrine ▁to ▁evaluate ▁neg lig ence ▁in ▁a ▁tort . ▁For ▁instance , ▁Alabama , ▁Maryland , ▁North ▁Carolina , ▁and ▁Virginia ▁continue ▁to ▁use ▁contrib ut ory ▁neg lig ence . ▁ ▁Ne ither ▁compar ative ▁neg lig ence ▁nor ▁contrib ut ory ▁neg lig ence ▁should ▁be ▁confused ▁with ▁joint ▁and ▁several ▁li ability , ▁which ▁generally ▁holds ▁each ▁of ▁two ▁or ▁more ▁cul p able ▁defend ants ▁responsible ▁for ▁all ▁the ▁dam ages ▁sust ained ▁by