Comparative negligence, similar to comparative fault, acknowledges the principle that two parties could have been negligent, and therefore bot involved in the fault of a civil wrongdoing. A comparative negligence considers that both parties may have, in fact, been negligent to a certain extent in the injury caused. Because of this, the damages paid to the plaintiff are reduced by the amount their own negligence played. If and when comparative negligence is presented to a court, it is the duty of the judge or jury to evaluate the negligence of each party in determining the damages that should be paid. Outside of the United States, this same rule is used, only it is called non-absolute contributory negligence. The rule is most commonly used as a defense in cases of personal injury, such as a motor vehicle accident.