What legal principle governs the apportionment of liability when multiple parties are at fault in an aviation accident?

The principle of comparative negligence governs the apportionment of liability when multiple parties are at fault in an aviation accident. Under comparative negligence, the court assesses the degree of fault of each party involved in the accident and assigns liability based on that proportionate degree of fault. This means that if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for the accident, their recovery will be reduced in accordance with their percentage of fault.

For example, if a court determines that a pilot is 70% responsible for an accident and a mechanic is 30% responsible, the pilot can recover 30% of the damages they incurred from the mechanic, while the mechanic's liability is limited to that 30% due to their comparative fault. This approach encourages a more equitable distribution of damages based on the specific actions of each party involved.

The other principles mentioned reflect different legal doctrines. Res ipsa loquitur is a doctrine that allows an inference of negligence based on the mere occurrence of an accident. Contributory negligence can completely bar a plaintiff's recovery if they are found to have contributed to their own injuries. Strict liability holds a party responsible regardless of fault, typically in cases involving defective products. These principles do not address the proportional allocation of fault and recovery in the same