If anyone could answer those two questionts please that would be great with a li
ID: 2733470 • Letter: I
Question
If anyone could answer those two questionts please that would be great with a littile of explanation
Susie sues ABC Corporation, DEF Corporation and GHI Corporation. She wins a judgment of $1,000,000. The jury finds that while the defendants were liable, Susie was also at fault and assigns her 70% of the liability and each defendant 10%. If Susie lived in state with “pure” comparative negligence she could recover:
A.$700,000
B.$300,000
C.$900,000
D.$0 she may not recover anything
Referring to Question previous question, if Susie lived in a state with regular comparative negligence she could recover:
A.$700,000
B.$300,000
C.$900,000
D.$0 she may not recover anything
Explanation / Answer
1. In a pure comparative advantage the defendants are liable for only their part of the of the negligence. If the plaintiff also involves negligence still he/she can recover compensation as reduced by the percentage of his faults.
Thus, Susie can recover = 1,000,000 - (1,000,000 x 70%) = $300,000 Option B.
2. in a regular comparative negligence plaintiff can only recover if his/her share os fault does not exceed 50%. In the given case Susie held 70% liable which exceeds 50%. Thus, Susie would have recover $0 Option D.