Defenses to negligence? Forum
-
- Posts: 65
- Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:07 pm
Defenses to negligence?
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?
-
- Posts: 20063
- Joined: Sun Mar 14, 2010 7:06 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
Depends on how your prof teaches it.
- cinephile
- Posts: 3461
- Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2010 3:50 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
I thought some jurisdictions still use contributory negligence?
We also learned assumption of the risk is a separate defense (although it gets murky when there's both assumption of the risk and comparative fault)
We also learned assumption of the risk is a separate defense (although it gets murky when there's both assumption of the risk and comparative fault)
- Extension_Cord
- Posts: 592
- Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2011 3:15 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
implied and express assumption of the risk
contributory negligence
comparitive negligence
contributory negligence
comparitive negligence
- MrPapagiorgio
- Posts: 1740
- Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:36 am
Re: Defenses to negligence?
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.bk187 wrote:Depends on how your prof teaches it.
Want to continue reading?
Register now to search topics and post comments!
Absolutely FREE!
Already a member? Login
-
- Posts: 547
- Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:59 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
contributory negligence is almost totally out of style in all jdx's. It's modern equivalent is comparative fault. A particular jdx has either one or the other, not both.
- arvcondor
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Sun Oct 03, 2010 11:33 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
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.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?
HTH
-
- Posts: 299
- Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm
Re: Defenses to negligence?
Is secondary assumption of risk when the plaintiff is aware of defendant's negligence but assumes the risk anyway?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.