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.
The answer is going to be true
That statement is true
one of the most effective method in preventing someone from drug-abuse is by tackling their moral judgement.
If we able to convinve them that abusing drugs will only cause harm and misery to them and the people that they love, they will tend to stay far away from it
<span>It is true when there is an accusation made by an event where there is an alleged guilty, and then that accused person or a witness gives a response, in his story can help to deny or assert the accusation. The most logical thing for the accused is to give answers that deny that accusation and free him from guilt. This is true.</span>
