An illegal act by a plaintiff does not automatically preclude them from recovering damages, as courts often employ comparative fault principles to apportion responsibility among all parties involved. The determination hinges on the jurisdiction’s specific laws regarding contributory negligence and proportional comparative fault. If the plaintiff’s illegal act contributed to their injury and this falls under a jurisdiction that recognizes contributory negligence, they may be barred from recovering damages. In jurisdictions with comparative fault systems, the plaintiff’s recovery can be reduced in proportion to their degree of fault.
For example: If a burglar enters a home and is injured because the homeowner has set up dangerously negligent traps, the burglar’s recovery for injuries might be diminished by their percentage of fault in committing the burglary, but not completely barred under a comparative fault system.