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.
Answer:
The case has yo be decided first and in The Supreme Court
The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
Yes, Pennsylvanias wiretapping law is a “two-party consent law”. Pennsylvania makes it a crime to intercept or record anyone unless both parties envolved consent.
Answer:
It means that both sides go the same direction
