8 posts • Page 1 of 1
- Posts: 1743
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am
bk1 wrote:Depends on how your prof teaches it.
This. My prof has differentiated between comparative fault, contributory negligence and assumption of risk as three separate defenses. On his past exams he has clearly stated what the jurisdiction uses for comparative fault and contributory negligence (usually uses a pure comparative fault jurisdiction). So yea, it all depends on what your prof says.
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 pm
RR320 wrote:Is the only thing available to the defendant comparative fault? I have in my notes that contributory negligence and assumption of risk was absorbed by comparative fault, is this correct?
There's also express assumption of risk, but yeah, for the most part, this is true. If there's an implied secondary assumption of risk, that indicates negligence on the part of the plaintiff and then calculations are made as to what degree the plaintiff was actually negligent.
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm
arvcondor wrote:RR320 wrote:If there's an implied secondary assumption of risk, that indicates negligence on the part of the plaintiff and then calculations are made as to what degree the plaintiff was actually negligent.
Is secondary assumption of risk when the plaintiff is aware of defendant's negligence but assumes the risk anyway?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: gopats92 and 16 guests