Final answer:
Under comparative negligence, the damages awarded vary depending on each state's statutes, which is true. States have the autonomy to determine their own standards of liability, as demonstrated in cases like Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., and this extends to how they apply comparative negligence in personal injury law.
Step-by-step explanation:
True, under comparative negligence, the damages awarded do indeed vary depending on each state's statutes. Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine in personal injury law where the court determines the percentage of fault of the involved parties and reduces the damages accordingly. Different states have adopted various formulations of this doctrine, some following a "pure" comparative negligence approach, where plaintiffs can recover damages even if they are 99% at fault, while others follow a "modified" approach, where plaintiffs can only recover if they are less than 50% or 51% at fault, depending on the state. The Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. case highlights how states have the freedom to formulate standards of liability, reinforcing the idea that legal doctrines like comparative negligence can and do vary by state.
Additionally, it's important to note the intersection with First Amendment considerations, as demonstrated by the provided references to Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., and the requirement for public officials to prove actual malice in defamation cases. This underlines how state laws align with constitutional protections while also offering unique standards for various legal matters including negligence and defamation.