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

Question

Johanna Humphrey

Social Studies

23 November, 18:40

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

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Craig Huber · Answer 1

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.