Where are we?

Negligence Elements of a cause of action:

— Duty

— Breach

— Causation

— Harm

Defenses:

— Contributory or Comparative Negligence

— Assumption of risk

Contributory Negligence

Reconciling

Butterfield v. Forrester

and

Davies v. Mann

Contributory Negligence in General:

The defendant is not liable

If the plaintiff was also negligent

— Duty,

— Breach,

— Causation, and

— Harm

Unless an exception applies:

— Last clear chance,

— Recklessness or willfulness of defendant, or

— Statute

Comparative Negligence

Three forms:

1. Pure comparative negligence
2. “Not as great as”
3. “No greater than”

Comparative Negligence

Three forms:

1. Pure comparative negligence
2. “Not as great as” = (Plaintiff less than 50% at fault)
3. “No greater than” = (Plaintiff 50% or less at fault)

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 40%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 20%

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 40%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 20%

Question 1: In a traditional common law jurisdiction, how would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 40%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 20%

Question 2: Assume instead that we are in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Uniform Comparative Fault Act (UCFA) rule for “pure” comparative negligence. How would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 40%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 20%

Question 3: Assume instead that we are in a jurisdiction that has adopted the Iowa statute for “no greater than” modified comparative negligence. How would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 50%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 10%

Question 4: Assume the comparative fault of the parties has changed. Under the Iowa statute for “no greater than” modified comparative negligence, how would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 51%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 9%

Question 5: Assume the comparative fault of the parties has changed. Under the Iowa statute for “no greater than” modified comparative negligence, how would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 50%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 10%

Question 6: Assume the comparative fault of the parties has changed. Under a “not as great as” modified comparative negligence statute, how would damages be allocated? Why?

Comparative Negligence Exercise

Plaintiff A has suffered $100,000 of damages in a car accident with B, C, and D.

A now sues B, C, and D for negligence.

Comparative fault of the parties: A - 40%, B - 30%, C - 10%, D - 20%

Question 7: Assume the comparative fault of the parties has changed back to the original numbers. Under a “not as great as” modified comparative negligence statute, how would damages be allocated? Why?