Annette drove through an intersection without looking and hit Vincent's car that he had driven into the intersection without obeying a stop sign. Annette sued Vincent. The jury found that Annette’s fault contributed 20 percent to the collision and determined that her total loss was $100,000. Under comparative negligence, the jury should award Annette:

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

This question presents a comparative negligence scenario where Annette sued Vincent after a collision, and the jury assigned 20% fault to Annette and 80% fault to Vincent, with Annette’s total losses amounting to $100,000.

First, recall the basic principle: in pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff’s recovery is reduced by the percentage of fault attributed to the plaintiff. The defendant (or defendants) is responsible for the portion of damages equal to their own percentage of fault, while the plaintiff bears the remainder of their own fault.

Here, Annette is at 20% fault. That means she bears 20% of her own damages, and Vincent would be responsible for the remaining 80% of those damages, assuming Vincent is the other tortfeasor and there are no other complicating factors.

Calculating the award: 80% of $100,000 equals $80,000. This represents the amount Annette would recover from Vincent after its application of comparative negligence.

Now, regarding the missing answer options: since the answer options list is empty, there is no alternative choice to evaluate. However, the core computation under pure comparative negligence clearly yields 80% of the total damages, which is $80,000.

To summarize the reasoning for why the $80,000 figure arises: (1) identify the plaintiff’s fault share (Annette’s 20%), (2) apply the rule that plaintiff’s recovery equals total damages minus plaintiff’s fault portion, which is equivalent to multiplying damages by (1 - 0.20) = 0.80, (3) compute 0.80 × $100,000 = $80,000, (4) interpret that Vincent would owe Annette $80,000 to satisfy the verdict, given the comparative negligence framework.

If one were to consider alternative tort schemes (for example, contributory negligence without any recovery when the plaintiff is at fault, or a framework that apportions liability differently), the result could diverge. But under pure comparative negligence, the calculation leading to $80,000 is the standard approach.

LEGAL & REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT FIN 2050-04 (90533) FINAL EXAM

View Explanation

Log in for full answers

Similar Questions

In a comparative negligence state, if the plaintiff in a negligence lawsuit is found to be 30 percent negligent, the plaintiff would recover:

Comparative negligence allows a defendant to argue that a plaintiff/victim’s own conduct contributed to the injuries sustained by the plaintiff/victim.

In a consumer society, many adults channel creativity into buying things

Economic stress and unpredictable times have resulted in a booming industry for self-help products

People born without creativity never can develop it

A product has a selling price of $20, a contribution margin ratio of 40% and fixed cost of $120,000. To make a profit of $30,000. The number of units that must be sold is: Type the number without $ and a comma. Eg: 20000

Which of the following statement regarding cost is correct:

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler