1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
max2010maxim [7]
3 years ago
7

House was riding his bike on a city street. While he was riding, he frequently looked back to verify that the books that he had

fastened to the rear part of his bike werestill attached. On one occasion while he was looking behind his back, he failed to notice a car that was entering an intersection just as he was crossing it. The car hit her, causing her to sustain numerous injuries. Three eye witnesses stated that the driver of the car had filled to stop at the stop sign before entering the intersection. House sued the driver of the car for negligence. What defenses might the defendant driver raise in this law suit? Discuss fully.
Law
1 answer:
creativ13 [48]3 years ago
3 0

Answer:

The major premise is lack of House to pay attention towards the road ahead of him and the rule of contributory negligence. By using this jurisdiction, the plaintiff's damages will be reduced.

Explanation:

  • The defendant driver, while he may ultimately be liable if all of the witnesses say he ran the stop sign, will raise the comparative fault of House for failing to keep a proper lookout and failing to take evasive action to avoid a collision.
  • The defenses are the same as they would be if the collision was with another car instead of a bicycle.
  • House had an ordinary duty to pay attention to the road ahead of him and keep himself and others safe.
  • By watching his books and not the traffic, he breached that duty.
  • I'm not saying that defense will be successful, but that's what would be alleged by the car's driver as a defense.
  • In most states, the damages to the plaintiff will be reduced by the percentage of his/her comparative fault (also known in some jurisdictions as contributory negligence).
  • In some states, if the plaintiff's comparative fault is shown to be over 50%, there will be no recovery at all.
You might be interested in
1. The sale of the property in Westfield's case was held not to be ordinary income
Lynna [10]

Answer:

wri"ng books and selling his copyright. (f) Pro't ... ( e) Again, this ful'ls the prerequisites as it is cash and a real gain (see ... This would be the case even if the payments were not regular as regularity .

6 0
2 years ago
ASAPPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!
o-na [289]

I believe its D but thats just my thought

4 0
2 years ago
¿Qué es un castigo social?
miskamm [114]

Answer:

social Que

Explanation:

castigo es un means social Que

8 0
3 years ago
By assessing Marxism's Russian disciples such as Lenin,Trotsky and Stalin,Is Marxism Inevitably totalitarian?
Tema [17]

Answer:

Yes

Explanation:

4 0
3 years ago
In 2001, about how many gigawatts of electricity in California came from burning fossil fuels?
telo118 [61]

Answer:120 gigawatts

             160 gigawatts

Explanation:

7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • Your roommate is injured in a terrible automobile accident and her parents asked you to contribute blood needed for her survival
    11·1 answer
  • Which type of government is most beneficial for its people? Which do you think is least beneficial?
    6·1 answer
  • When a law has been violated, what must be given?
    8·1 answer
  • What was the Supreme Court's justification for overturning the separate-but-equal doctrine?
    10·1 answer
  • What is the appropriate age of criminal responsibility?
    14·1 answer
  • What is the goal of any traffic stop by law enforcement?
    14·1 answer
  • An important duty of the president is
    11·2 answers
  • If you were to analyze the AFIS database, you would be looking for a DNA match. True or False
    11·1 answer
  • Describe one factor that increases the likelihood for the supreme court to accept an appeal.
    10·1 answer
  • The 1967 u. S. Supreme court decision that declared unconstitutional the laws in sixteen states that prohibited interracial marr
    13·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!