Which of the following defenses is related to the plaintiff’s actions leading to their own injury?

The defense related to the plaintiff’s actions that contribute to their own injury is comparative negligence. This legal concept acknowledges that a plaintiff may have played a role in their own harm, allowing for an apportionment of fault between the parties involved. For example, if a plaintiff is found to be partially responsible for an accident—perhaps by not exercising due care—this can reduce the amount of damages they can recover. If the jury determines that the plaintiff was 30% at fault, their compensation can be reduced by that percentage.

In contrast, assumption of risk involves scenarios where plaintiffs knowingly engage in activities that carry inherent risks and cannot claim damages if they are hurt as a result. Res ipsa loquitur applies when an incident is so obvious that negligence can be inferred, and statutory compliance relates to adherence to regulations, which doesn't directly address a plaintiff’s own actions leading to injury. Thus, comparative negligence is specifically focused on the shared responsibility of both the plaintiff and the defendant regarding the injuries sustained.