Contributory negligence is a common law tort where a plaintiff was completely barred from recovering damages if they (plaintiff) were negligent in any way for causing the accident. This would hold true even if the defendant’s negligence were greater and far more serious than the plaintiff’s (“Contributory Negligence,” n.d.).
Our week #5 video provided an excellent history of the courts change from contributory negligence to comparative fault. The issue with contributory negligence, as stated above, was if the plaintiff displayed any negligent conduct/action it allowed the defendants to escape any and all liability for their own negligent conduct. Contributory negligence undermined the two primary goals of tort law; which are deterring negligence …show more content…
The plaintiff, if awarded damages, may collect the full award of damages from any of the defendants (“Joint and Several,” n.d.).
The week #5 video (“Defiance and Damages,” n.d.) offers the following: one of the results/consequences of the shift from contributory negligence to comparative fault was that defendants began to question the justification of apportioning among multiple defendants known as joint and several liability. Traditionally, joint and several liability meant if multiple defendants were responsible for a plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff is able to recover damages from any of the defendants in any combination the plaintiff chooses. There are inherent issues with the traditional view of joint and several liability, in that if one defendant is wealthy and the other is destitute, the plaintiff could recover all the damages from the wealthy defendant, even if this defendant had a small portion of the responsibility for the injury to the …show more content…
What is the difference between primary and secondary implied assumption of risk?
Express assumption of risk typically involves a written (formal) agreement; however in theory an express assumption of risk can be oral. An example would be if one desired to participate in a bullfight. The arena holding the bullfight would have the prospective matador sign a from acknowledging the danger and agreeing not to hold the corporation/company liable. Those signed documents are called waivers or releases. Implied assumption of risk has no formal/explicit agreement but the facts of the matter indicate the plaintiff was aware of the risk and voluntarily chose/agreed to accept the risk.
Primary implied assumption of risk involves activities that are unavoidable/inherently dangerous. The person who voluntarily engages in these inherently dangerous activities, with full knowledge of the danger, cannot collect tort damages if one of the inherent risks occurs. Our week #5 (“Defense and Damages,” n.d.) video teaches the viewer that primary assumption of risk is not an actually a negligence liability defense. Recalling that defenses arise only after the plaintiff has proven the defendant acted negligently. The main theme in the primary assumption of risk is that the plaintiff’s willingness to encounter the risk is evidence that the defendant’s behavior is not
Our week #5 video provided an excellent history of the courts change from contributory negligence to comparative fault. The issue with contributory negligence, as stated above, was if the plaintiff displayed any negligent conduct/action it allowed the defendants to escape any and all liability for their own negligent conduct. Contributory negligence undermined the two primary goals of tort law; which are deterring negligence …show more content…
The plaintiff, if awarded damages, may collect the full award of damages from any of the defendants (“Joint and Several,” n.d.).
The week #5 video (“Defiance and Damages,” n.d.) offers the following: one of the results/consequences of the shift from contributory negligence to comparative fault was that defendants began to question the justification of apportioning among multiple defendants known as joint and several liability. Traditionally, joint and several liability meant if multiple defendants were responsible for a plaintiff’s injury, the plaintiff is able to recover damages from any of the defendants in any combination the plaintiff chooses. There are inherent issues with the traditional view of joint and several liability, in that if one defendant is wealthy and the other is destitute, the plaintiff could recover all the damages from the wealthy defendant, even if this defendant had a small portion of the responsibility for the injury to the …show more content…
What is the difference between primary and secondary implied assumption of risk?
Express assumption of risk typically involves a written (formal) agreement; however in theory an express assumption of risk can be oral. An example would be if one desired to participate in a bullfight. The arena holding the bullfight would have the prospective matador sign a from acknowledging the danger and agreeing not to hold the corporation/company liable. Those signed documents are called waivers or releases. Implied assumption of risk has no formal/explicit agreement but the facts of the matter indicate the plaintiff was aware of the risk and voluntarily chose/agreed to accept the risk.
Primary implied assumption of risk involves activities that are unavoidable/inherently dangerous. The person who voluntarily engages in these inherently dangerous activities, with full knowledge of the danger, cannot collect tort damages if one of the inherent risks occurs. Our week #5 (“Defense and Damages,” n.d.) video teaches the viewer that primary assumption of risk is not an actually a negligence liability defense. Recalling that defenses arise only after the plaintiff has proven the defendant acted negligently. The main theme in the primary assumption of risk is that the plaintiff’s willingness to encounter the risk is evidence that the defendant’s behavior is not