Comparative Negligence

Question 1

a. Lombard Laws

Answer 1

i. Holding
1) One man was standing under the weight of a well lift when another released it to bring up the water, the man was severely injured. The Judge split the NEG, 2/3 to the injured and 1/3 to the injurer.
ii. Notes

Question 2

d. Li v. Yellow cab of Cal

Answer 2

i. Facts
1) P injured when attempted to cross three lanes of oncoming traffic when struck by the D’s vehicle which was going in excess of the speed limit and ran a yellow light.
ii. Issues
1) Should the P be barred from recover because he was CONNEG or should CA adopt a COMNEG doctrine instead?
iii. Holding
1) Pure comparative law
a) CONNEG doctrine is inequitable in that it does not distribute reasonability in proportion to fault
b) CONNEG ISSUES
i) Juries apply COMNEG anyways
ii) When multiple parties are involved
iii) How to assign % of fault
iv) What to do if not all liable parties are presented to the court
2) 50% COMNEG law
a) Impure
b) 50% = apportion of liability to fault until the P Neg is equal to or greater than the D’s
c) Recovers 51 percent of the damages if P is 49% Neg but gets Zero if 50% NEG
iv. Notes
1) Statutory law used a CONNEG standard, so changing the law was kind of sketch.
2) How can the judge get past the barrier that this is the law without crossing over into the realm of activism?
a) Just clarified the legislative intent.
3) If a legislature was to adopt a COMNEG system, which one would they choose.
a) Pure comparative System
i) The extent to which the P’s NEG contributed to the incident is directly correlated to damages
b) Impure Comparative System
i) Less than 50% damage you can still recover.
ii) This is very difficult to figure out percentages when you get close to 50-50.
iii) What the hell should they do?

Question 3

e. Comparative NEG In relation to:
i. Last Clear Chance rule
1) Spahn v. Port Royal

Answer 3

a) Last clear chance rule disappears under COMNEG
b) A reward under COMNEG should be $500
c) What was the legislatures intent when it reformed the state law between CONNEG and COMNEG in relation to last clear chance? It was to appropriately assign damages where the old law was used to lessen the harshness of the CONNEG

Question 4

e. Comparative NEG In relation to:
ii. Assumption of risk
1) Knight v. Jewett

Answer 4

a) Facts
i) P broke their little finger in co-ed touch football game. They were injured by the D after the P informed the D they were playing too rough
b) Issues
i) Is P barred from recovery because of the assumption of risk in playing a sport
c) Holding
i) George: the D only owed P duty to avoid reckless behavior therefore the D was not NEG and the P was held in assumption of risk
ii) Kennard: Wants formal application of risk rule, doesn’t want the courts to change it, rather the legislature
d) Notes
i) Secondary assumption of risk fits within COMNEG after analysis of P’s duty.
A. If the P is unreasonable (according to her duty), COMNEG would diminish P’s recovery by the percentage of unreasonableness.
ii) Primary assumption of risk, after analyzing the D’s duty.
A. If the D is unreasonable in their duty (within assumption of risk is Gross NEG or reckless in nature)
iii) Duty owed in a sporting event is not to abstain from NEG but to abstain from GROSS NEG. Therefore the D is no liable.
iv) Tommy teaches friend to drive and she hits an old lady
A. Her duty is not a duty to drive unreasonably,
B. Tommy has the higher duty because he is the teacher.

Question 5

e. Comparative NEG In relation to:
iii. Intentional torts
1) Morgan v. Johnson

Answer 5

a) Facts
i) P and D both drunk while exiting the same bar; the D threated the P with a knife and dragged her to the care and beat her with interior rearview mirror
b) Holding
i) Court rejected the D argument that the P’s intoxication was a defense to an intentional tort.
c) Notes
i) Comparative NEG does nothing to bar intentional torts.

Question 6

e. Comparative NEG In relation to:
iii. Intentional torts
2) Blazovic v. Andrich

Answer 6

a) Holding
i) Intentional conduct not “different in kind” from NEG rather “different in degree”
ii) Different levels of culpability inherent in each type of conduct will merely be reflected In the jury’s apportionment of fault

Question 7

e. Comparative NEG In relation to:

Safety statute violation

Answer 7

1) Facts
a) Vagrant is cleaning windows and the people paying him to do it don’t give him the correct safety gear.
2) Holding
a) NEED TO WRITE THIS ONE