For many years, the common law refused to account for this basic truth in tort cases. The contributory negligence doctrine reflected the absolutist moral view that the plaintiff who was blameless was entitled to full vindication in a court of law, but that one who shared the taint of sin in any degree must be sent forth to languish in the wilderness. Today we are less pious and more pragmatic about accident causation. This more “modern” view is reflected in the widespread adoption of comparative negligence, which replaces the all-or-nothing approach of contributory negligence with a system that reduces a party's damages to account for her fault.