Question

Stephanie runs a red light and crashes into a car driven by Britta, who was speeding. At trial, the jury finds Stephanie 80% at fault, and Britta 20% at fault. Britta’s total damages were $100,000, and the judge awards her $80,000. The judge was most likely applying the doctrine of:  Assumption of the risk.  Contributory negligence Comparative negligence  Implied consent 

Answer 1

Answer

Comparative negligence.

Explanation:

The judge has applied the doctrine of comparative negligence in this trial.

Comparative negligence states that when an accident occurs, the fault and or negligence of each party involved is based upon their respective contributions to the accident. Insurers can use this to pay claims in order of assigned blame.

Comparative negligence is mostly used to assign blame in auto accidents. If two drivers both break the same traffic laws in an accident, as in the case of Stephanie and Britta. Many carriers assign blame each driver on a percentage basis, such as with Stephanie and Britta (80/20).

If two parties are involved in a car accident, the insurers use comparative negligence to assign fault. Determination of fault in an accident is a major aspect of insurance.

In this case the damages are awarded proportionally based on the degrees of determined negligence. Even though Britta is found less responsible, she still has a percentage of the blame assigned to her. The percentage of negligence attached to Britta, the less responsible party is called contributory negligence. In this trial resulting from a car accident the contributory negligence would be, Britta's failure to exercise responsibility over her safety. In this case, Stephanie could have used contributory negligence as a defense.

Answer 2

Answer:

Comparative negligence

Explanation:

comparative negligence is a principle of tort that states that when an accident occurs the negligence or fault of the accident is based on each party's contribution to the cause of the accident and therefore the compensation for damages is shared between these parties as exemplified in the question above.

Comparative negligence differs from contributory negligence by the fact that the plaintiff isn't settled under contributory negligence.