What principle dictates that a plaintiff's own negligence can reduce or bar their recovery in Utah?

The principle that dictates that a plaintiff's own negligence can reduce or bar their recovery in Utah is known as comparative negligence. This allows for the allocation of fault between parties involved in a tort case. Under Utah's comparative negligence statute, if a plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for the harm suffered, their recovery can be reduced by the percentage of their own fault.

For example, if a plaintiff is determined to be 30% at fault for an accident and the total damages are assessed at $100,000, the plaintiff can only recover $70,000, reflecting the 30% deduction due to their own negligence. This method contrasts with the older contributory negligence rule, which would bar recovery entirely if the plaintiff had any fault in the situation.

Negligent infliction of emotional distress relates to claims where the emotional distress is a consequence of negligent actions, but it does not pertain to the principle of reducing recovery based on a plaintiff’s own negligence. Vicarious liability involves holding one party responsible for the negligent actions of another, typically in employer-employee relationships, and also does not address how a plaintiff's own negligence impacts their recovery.