Answer:
Bob contributed to his injury and apportioned damages
Explanation:
Under pure form of comparative negligence, a defendant is only responsible for the proportion of fault arising out of his negligence. The plaintiff is still allowed a compensation against damages even if he himself contributed to such a fault.
Comparative negligence mentions that whenever an accident takes place, the total negligence is a sum of proportionate negligence by each party, which contributed to such accident.
In such case, the negligence for an accident cannot be placed upon one party alone.
In the given case, since Bob filed a suit in a state that adopts pure form of comparative negligence, he shall be eligible to some compensation even if the fault was majorly his. Though, the quantum of compensation shall be based upon the determined fault of each party to the accident.
Just took Penn Foster test, and the answer is D. 30 and 45
Answer:
A.
Explanation:
He is a low-risk borrower who qualifies for lower interest rates.
It is either 21 or 18. They have talked about lower the age to 18 but I am not sure if they did it yet or not.
Answer: A case that had to do with contract interference. Pennzoil made an unsolicited bid to buy 20 percent of Getty Oil at $112.50 per share and the Getty Board approved the agreement. Before the lawyers for both side could approve the agreement, Texaco appeared and offered Getty stockholders $128 a share for the entire company. Getty officers turned their attention to Texaco, but Pennzoil sued, claiming tortious interference. Texaco said they had not interfered because there was no binding contract.
Jury agreed with Penzoil's argument--$7.53 million in actual damages and $3 billion more in punitive damages. After appeals and frantic negotiations, the two parties reached a settlement.
Texaco agreed to pay Penzoil $3 billion as a settlement for having wrongfully interfered with Pennzoil's agreement to buy Getty.
