Paralegal Advanced Competency Exam (PACE) Practice Exam 2026 – The Comprehensive All-in-One Guide to Exam Success!

The basis of the comparative fault rule in admiralty law is founded on the principle that damages are allocated based on the percentage of fault attributed to each party involved in the incident. This means that when a collision or maritime accident occurs, the court assesses the degree to which each vessel or party contributed to the incident.

For example, if one vessel is found to be 70% at fault for a collision while the other is 30% at fault, the damages awarded to the injured party will be reduced according to these percentages. Therefore, if the total damages amount to $100,000, the first vessel would be responsible for $70,000 and the second for $30,000. This approach aims to promote fairness by ensuring that each party is held responsible in proportion to their actual negligence or fault in contributing to the accident.

This method contrasts with other principles such as joint and several liability, where parties may be liable for the full amount of damages regardless of their degree of fault, or the concept that different vessels share damages equally or bear their own damages without regard to fault. The comparative fault rule thus allows for a more equitable allocation of responsibility in admiralty cases.