ShadowsPapa
Well-Known Member
- First Name
- Bill
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2019
- Threads
- 247
- Messages
- 40,440
- Reaction score
- 53,853
- Location
- Runnells, Iowa
- Vehicle(s)
- '25 JTMX, '23 JLU 4xe, '82 SX4, '73 Javelin
- Occupation
- Retired auto mechanic, frmr gov't ntwrk security admin
- Vehicle Showcase
- 3
Some states do use that process - if you could have possibly avoided the idiot, but didn't, then you are at least partly at fault.Then they tried to assign a portion of the fault on me.
This applies mostly to injuries in an auto accident, but don't think for a minute that you can't be held even partially responsible for an accident - if you could have avoided the idiot.
Here's an example -
Comparative Negligence
Joe and Bob are involved in a car accident.
Joe was traveling at the speed limit when Bob ran a red light and hit him.
In this instance, Joe would be deemed partially responsible for the accident due to his failure to take account of changing traffic conditions or slow down before entering the intersection.
Bob, on the other hand, would be found primarily responsible as he ran a red light and caused the accident.
Using the concept of comparative negligence, a court might find Joe to be 40% responsible for the accident and Bob to be 60% responsible. In this case, Joe would only be able to recover damages from Bob for up to 60% of his total losses.
This is a fact - look it up. It varies with states - some are NO FAULT states, others not so cut and dried. Florida is a comparative negligence state when it comes to medial/injuries.
Some are that way even for repairs.
Sponsored