The example is meant to illustrate that being "dumb" doesn't excuse being victimized... How about this, then, a person is jaywalking across the street and as he does so a drunk driver hits him and seriously injures him. Only the minority of jurisdictions, those employing contributory negligence, would bar recovery for his damages. Sure, the person jaywalking is "at fault," but that doesn't excuse the fact the diver was drunk. Ergo, the majority approach (adopted by a vast majority of states) is comparative negligence. Say the driver is found to be 90% at fault and the pedestrian is 10%. If the pedestrian's total damages are $100,000, he can still recover $90,000 from the driver. (Unless it's a "modified" jurisdiction, and pedestrian was 50% or more at fault).