For Your Data Mcintyre V. Balentine Example Brief Summary
February 23, 2019
Edit
McIntyre v. Balentine instance brief summary
F: P in addition to D were involved inward a machine accident resulting injuries to P. It was institute out that both men had consumed alcohol, in addition to D was traveling inward excess of speed limit.
P brought a negligence activity against D, in addition to D answered that P was contributorially negligent. Judgment entered for D. Ac affirmed, belongings that comparative negligence is non the police inward Tenne.
R: So long as a P’s negligence remains less than D’s negligence, P may recover; inward such a case, P’s damages are to hold upwards reduced inward proportion to the percent of the full negligence attributable to the P.
C: reversed
Co:
1. pure negligence: P’s damages are reduced inward proportion to the percent negligence attributed to him. Ex) P responsible for ninety percent of the negligence that caused his injuries withal may recover 10 percent of his damages
2. Modified negligence: P recover as inward pure jurisdictions, simply exclusively if the P’s negligence either
i) does non hap (50 percent jurisdictions) or (D is as or to a greater extent than at fault)
ii) is less than (49 percent jurisdictions) the D’s negligence. (D is to a greater extent than at fault)
P (fault 90%, recovery 10%, impairment $10M) <-> D (fault 10%, recovery 90%, impairment $1) => causes employment inward pure negligence
F: P in addition to D were involved inward a machine accident resulting injuries to P. It was institute out that both men had consumed alcohol, in addition to D was traveling inward excess of speed limit.
P brought a negligence activity against D, in addition to D answered that P was contributorially negligent. Judgment entered for D. Ac affirmed, belongings that comparative negligence is non the police inward Tenne.
R: So long as a P’s negligence remains less than D’s negligence, P may recover; inward such a case, P’s damages are to hold upwards reduced inward proportion to the percent of the full negligence attributable to the P.
C: reversed
Co:
1. pure negligence: P’s damages are reduced inward proportion to the percent negligence attributed to him. Ex) P responsible for ninety percent of the negligence that caused his injuries withal may recover 10 percent of his damages
2. Modified negligence: P recover as inward pure jurisdictions, simply exclusively if the P’s negligence either
i) does non hap (50 percent jurisdictions) or (D is as or to a greater extent than at fault)
ii) is less than (49 percent jurisdictions) the D’s negligence. (D is to a greater extent than at fault)
P (fault 90%, recovery 10%, impairment $10M) <-> D (fault 10%, recovery 90%, impairment $1) => causes employment inward pure negligence