1)    it meanst that  the def might have been negligent but the plaintiff was neg as well.

one way to show how the pl contributed to his own injury is to show that the pl’s own neg contributed to their injuries by violating a statute

In the past, what would happen under contributory negligence  if the plaintiff were even one percent at fault?

What is one (close by) jurisidiction, is this the case?

In the past if it was found that the pl was even one percent neg/ at fault, he would loose everything under the claim. So it was really good for the defendant. It’s still applicable to DC.

What did the courts begin to recognize regarding contributory negligence? 

What was the court's response to this recognition?

The courts recognized that this was a pretty harsh standard b/c it allowed defs to completely escape from liabilty. So cts began to introduce exceptions to the contributory neg standard

It is a doctrine under which pl can esacpe having whole claim thrown out.

What is the last clear chance doctrine?

When is it used?

what's another name for it?

Is is an escape doctrine. Under this doctrine, Sometimes called the humanitarian doctrine that allows the pl to recover despite contributory Neg. In this rule, the person who last had the clear chance to avoid the accident but fails to do so, will be liable for neg. So it is in effect a rebuttal by the def’s contributory neg defense for the pl to use to save him from having his claim completely gone

When dealing with last clear chance , some cts will  distinguish between helpless vs. inattentive peril.

Under inattentive peril, when pl again puts himself put himself in a situation of actual peril from which he ca extricate himself but does so unkowningly b/c he was being inattentive.- done for his own inattentiveness.

This is when the plaintiff is not helpless but is in a position to escape injury. The person's negligence consists of failure to pay attention to his or her surroundings and detect his or her own peril. If the defendant discovers the plaintiff's danger and inattentiveness, and is then negligent, a majority of courts allows the plaintiff to recover. 

For the last clear chance doctrin to operate the defendant must have been actually able to to avoid the accident (i.e. when applying the laws of physics). If you can see the car you are going to hit so you know to slow down vs. cannot see it.

Pl made a choice to engage in some dangerous activity he knew was dangerous. Pl can be denied recovery if he knew of the risk and voluntarily assumed it. It is irrelevant if that the pl’s choice was unreasonable.

Can be assumption of risk be implied or  not?

What is an example?

There must be either an implied or express assumption of risk (i.e. you do not actually have to know that you will be hit by a foul ball at game if you read the warning and sit down, it is implied that you assume.)

Can all risks be assumed?

Why or why not?

How can statutes effect the assumption of risk?

Example?

Where a statute is enacted to protect a class, the members of a class will not be deemed to have assumed any risk. I.e. OSCA that protects workers in highly hazardous environments and those employees will not be an assumption that the employee has assumed any particular risk. So agreeing to do that kind of work does not mean you assumed the risk of injury

Comparative Negligence- General Overview

Is the same everywhere?

Give an example?

Comparative negligence is now adopted by most states. There are different kinds of comparative neg jurisdictions. The most common is called partial comparative negligence will still bar a pl’s recovery it passes over a certain threshold (i.e. in some states the pl can only be 49% or less and he can still recover.)

A pure comprative neg jurisdiction will let the pl. recover a percentage of the damages matching d’s neg no matter how small or little. So if he is 90% responsible for his own injuries he can still get 10% of his damages from his injuries.

It’s important to note that in comparative neg states, there is no last chance doctrine and there is no implied assumption of risk, but that an express assumption of risk is allowed (i.e. you assume a risk in writing).

Comparative neg has nothing to do with intentional torts- it is limited to neg. No assumption of risk in intentional torts.