There are several circumstances that make comparative responsibility intricate: when the plaintiff shares in fault for the damages, when a defendant who has a share of the fault cannot be included in the suit, when one of the defendants can not pay, and when there are charges of both negligence and intentional torts in the same action.
Currently, only Alabama, Maryland, and the District of Columbia will not allow a plaintiff to recover if it is proven to be in any way at fault.
[1] Most states will follow one of three solutions to the problem: Another situation is where a defendant apportioned some fault can not pay his portion of the damages.
The law and academia on this issue is very complex, but typically support holding intentional tortfeasors in a suit subject to joint and several liability.
[2] The Restatement (Third) of Torts (section 25) reflects the current majority view that comparative negligence applies to the strict liability of defendant.