Background Facts: Pallavi and Rohit were each driving their cars when they crashed into each other. They sued each other. At trial, the jury found the following:

• Pallavi suffered $1,000 in damages and was 70% responsible for the crash because he was driving negligently
• Rohit suffered $2,000 in damages and was 30% responsible for the crash because (1) Rohit was driving negligently and (2) Rohit saw that Pallavi was driving erratically, was aware of the risk of a crash, but still pulled out in front of Pallavi.

[Note: For the following questions, apply the law on contributory negligence, comparative negligence, and comparative fault. Do NOT apply the "last clear chance" doctrine.]

How much can Pallavi recover from Rohit under a pure comparative negligence tort system?

Explain your reasoning.