2. Contributory negligence was before comparative negligence was adopted. If the plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct contributed to their own injury, the defendant paid no damages. Contributory negligence was a complete defense in spite of the defendant’s negligence. If comparative negligence applies: Contributory negligence is not a complete bar to the plaintiff’s recovery. The damages are allocated between the plaintiff and the defendant according to their relative fault. It’s also the failure of plaintiffs to take reasonable precautions for their safety, helping to cause their own injury or other loss. Comparative negligence is the damages between the plaintiff and the defendant are allocated according to their relative fault. There is a formula that must be met before comparative negligence can apply. When the formula has been met the damages are allocated.
4. Last clear chance is for plaintiffs who …show more content…
Plaintiffs must not take unreasonable risks of injuring themselves. The plaintiff will be held liable for acting unreasonably under the circumstances. There is a formula that is used to determine whether someone has acted unreasonably. When someone is charged with contributory negligence, the allegation is that they acted unreasonably. To determine whether that is true there is a series of questions that have to be asked. 1. How foreseeable was it to you that your conduct would contribute to an accident? 2. How foreseeable should it have been to you? 3. What kind of injury was foreseeable to you? 4. What kind of injury should have been foreseeable to you? 5. What were you trying to do before the accident? 6. How important or socially beneficial was it? These are the types of questions that a reasonable person would ask in order to determine the negligence of the