Which defense against a claim of negligence attempts to show that enough time has passed since the event that the claim is now irrelevant?

The defense against a claim of negligence that demonstrates enough time has passed since the incident, making the claim irrelevant, is the statute of limitations. This legal principle establishes a maximum time period after an event within which legal proceedings must be initiated. If a claim is brought after this period has expired, the defendant can assert the statute of limitations as a defense, effectively dismissing the claim.

Understanding this principle is crucial in tort law. It serves multiple purposes: it encourages timely resolution of disputes, ensures evidence remains fresh, and protects defendants from perpetual legal liability. Each state may have different limitations periods based on the type of claim, and in Utah, for instance, personal injury claims often have a specific time frame within which a lawsuit must be filed.

The other options relate to different legal defenses in negligence cases. Comparative negligence involves determining the relative fault of the parties involved, and assumption of risk refers to a scenario where a plaintiff knowingly engages in an activity that carries inherent risks. Contributory negligence pertains to situations where a plaintiff's own negligence contributed to their injury, potentially barring their claim. However, none of these options focus on the passage of time as a basis for dismissing a claim, which is the key aspect of the statute of limitations.