Wisconsin You can only recover from someone if they are more negligent than you

Wisconsin you can only recover from someone if they

This preview shows page 33 - 35 out of 59 pages.

trigger to apply comparative fault rather than contributory negligence. Wisconsin: You can only recover from someone if they are more negligent than you. This focuses on the negligence of the particular person someone is trying to recover from. E.g. P 5%, B 10%, C 40%, D 45%. Each suffer $100,000 in damages. 33
Image of page 33
P recovers: $95,000 ($10,000 from B; $40,000 from C; $45,000 from D) B recovers: $85,000 ($40,000 from C; $45,000 from D) C recovers: $45,000 ($45,000 from D) D recovers: $0 North Dakota: Aggregates the negligence of everyone else involved. You can only recover from someone if everyone else’s negligence is more than yours. E.g. P 5%, B 10%, C 40%, D 45%. Each suffers $100,000 in damages. Unlike Wisconsin modified comparative fault, D can recover here because P+B+C=55% at fault which is greater than D’s 45%. Nebraska: P is barred from recovery if his negligence is equal to or greater than that of D’s. Maine: Juries may reduce P’s recovery by any amount it considers “equitable and just.” ASSUMPTION OF THE RISK Primary Assumption of the Risk : D did not owe P a duty of care or did not breach the duty owed – i.e. P must guard against his/her own injury, rather than D. based on inherent and known risks of an activity. - Applies when there is no express contract that waived defendant’s liability. - Arises for sports/gaming activities. (ie: watching a sports game, assume the risk of a ball flying into the stands). Would not give rise to liability because of the assumption of risk. - Inherency of risk will depend on the rules of the game, as they are understood in society. - If there is no contract, then look to see if the risk at issue is inherent and known to the activity based on the rules of the game, or expectations associated with the activity. Secondary Assumption of the Risk: Treated as contributory negligence/merged into the comparative fault system. - Applies when P is told about a specific risk associated with an activity and voluntarily undertakes the activity anyway. (ie: accepting a ride from a driver one knows is intoxicated). - Based on the notion of implied in fact contract… although there is no express contract, there is an implicitly exculpation of the D if the P knows about the risk and voluntarily undertakes the activity anyway Express Assumption of Risk/Contractual : P signs a release, contractually accepting the duty of care from D, therefore D cannot be “little ‘n’ negligent.” Total bar to P’s recovery. - Often associated with an exculpatory clause, a term of a contract that waives any legal claims against the D. Generally, contracts are enforceable if they are clear, unambiguous, and conspicuous (i.e. P knew what he/she was signing). May not be enforceable if... Activity is an essential service (i.e. P has no choice but to use it, e.g. hospitals). Or D has a huge bargaining advantage. Can P take his/her business elsewhere? See Stelluti spin class vs. Tunkl “Compulsory assumption of the risk” cannot be valid.
Image of page 34
Image of page 35

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 59 pages?

  • Spring '07
  • Spann
  • Outline

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture