Which defense may be used when a plaintiff contributes to their own injuries?

The correct answer is contributory negligence. This defense applies in situations where the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the injuries they sustained. Under this doctrine, if the plaintiff is found to have played a role in causing their injuries, they may be barred from recovering any damages from the defendant. It operates on the principle that individuals have a responsibility to exercise reasonable care for their own safety.

In jurisdictions that adhere to contributory negligence, even a small percentage of fault on the part of the plaintiff can result in the complete denial of their claim. This emphasizes the critical nature of individual responsibility within the legal framework.

Comparative negligence allows for a different approach, wherein damages are adjusted based on the degree of fault of each party. This means that a plaintiff could still recover some damages even if they were partially at fault. Assumption of risk involves situations where the plaintiff knowingly and willingly engages in a risky activity, potentially limiting their ability to recover damages if an injury occurs. Full liability would imply that one party is completely responsible for the damages caused and does not directly relate to the situation of shared or partial responsibility.