in Liebeck v McDonald (the Hot Coffee case)

since Liebeck was at least partially at fault for her injuries by placing the coffee between her legs she should not recover, that point follow what is called contributory negligence. This common law theory holds that if the plaintiff contributed at all to her injuries she cannot recover anything even if the defendant as 99% liable. On the other hand comparative negligence is the modern theory that holds that if the jury finds the defendant was negligent and that the plaintiff contributed to her injuries in some way the jury should reduce the award by the amount the plaintiff contributed. your thought about this