Defenses to Negligence

T/F: Contributory negligence completely bars a plaintiff from recovery if they are even 1% at fault

T

T/F: Most states use contributory negligence as their current negligence defense doctrine

F

T/F: Assumption of risk applies when a plaintiff voluntarily accepts a known danger

T

T/F: Under partial comparative negligence, a plaintiff who is 51% at fault cannot recover anything

T

T/F: Pure comparative negligence allows a plaintiff to recover even if they are 99% at fault

T

T/F: Looking away briefly while driving can support a contributory negligence defense in a contributory state

T

T/F: Assumption of risk requires that the plaintiff actually knew the specific risk involved

F

T/F: A plaintiff who suffers an injury after ignoring a known danger may be barred by assumption of risk

T

T/F: Under partial comparative negligence, all states allow recovery when fault is 50/50

F

In pure comparative negligence states, a plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of […]

fault

A plaintiff who knowingly and voluntarily accepts a known risk is said to have assumed the […]

risk

The old rule that bars any recovery if the plaintiff was negligent at all is called […] negligence

contributory

The modern majority rule that apportions damages by fault is known as […] negligence

comparative

In a comparative negligence system, the jury assigns a percentage of […] to both parties

fault

If a plaintiff’s fault exceeds the defendant’s, they recover nothing under […] comparative negligence

partial

The system that allows any recovery regardless of plaintiff’s percentage of fault is called […] comparative negligence

pure