Why is comparative fault considered fairer than contributory negligence?

Contributory negligence was considered harsh in some instances because it was an all or nothing rule. Sometimes a deserving plaintiff would be denied recovery even though he or she was far less negligent than the defendant because the jury or judge determined that the plaintiff was also a little bit negligent. In comparative negligence, a party is only responsible for his or her percentage of the total fault, which seems to be a much fairer and equitable system.