Fill-in-the-Blank Most states have adopted some form of a(n) blank 1 negligence standard. Under the blank 1 doctrine the defendant remains liable because of a failure to take advantage of an opportunity to prevent harm to the plaintiff. Under a comparative-negligence defense, a plaintiff who was awarded $1,000,000 and who was found to be 30 percent negligent would receive an award of blank 1. A plaintiff who is 50 percent negligent cannot recover in a state that adopted a(n) blank 1 approach. In assessing a plaintiff’s conduct who has allegedly assumed the risk, a(n) blank 1 standard is used, whereas in assessing a plaintiff’s conduct who was allegedly negligent, a(n) blank 2 standard is used. blank 1 is not a complete defense to intentional tort liability. Under the 50:50 apportionment, the plaintiff would be barred under the blank 1 approach. Local governments can often claim immunity when a(n) blank 1 function is involved. Activities carried out by water and gas utilities are considered blank 1 functions of a local government. An inmate may file a blank 1 action against the state government, the correctional institute, and the employees.