Contributory negligence Puns

By now I'm sure everyone here is aware of the "Hot Coffee Lawsuit". If you're not, here's a brief rundown from Wikipedia:

>On February 27, 1992, Stella Liebeck, a 79-year-old woman from Albuquerque, New Mexico, ordered a 49-cent cup of coffee from the drive-through window of a local McDonald's restaurant located at 5001 Gibson Boulevard Southeast. Liebeck was in the passenger's seat of a 1989 Ford Probe which did not have cup holders. Her grandson parked the car so that Liebeck could add cream and sugar to her coffee. Liebeck placed the coffee cup between her knees and pulled the far side of the lid toward her to remove it. In the process, she spilled the entire cup of coffee on her lap. Liebeck was wearing cotton sweatpants; they absorbed the coffee and held it against her skin, scalding her thighs, buttocks, and groin.
>
>Liebeck was taken to the hospital, where it was determined that she had suffered third-degree burns on six percent of her skin and lesser burns over sixteen percent. She remained in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafting. During this period, Liebeck lost 20 pounds (9.1 kg) (nearly 20 percent of her body weight), reducing her to 83 pounds (38 kg). After the hospital stay, Liebeck needed care for three weeks, which was provided by her daughter.Liebeck suffered permanent disfigurement after the incident and was partially disabled for two years

The jury found Liebeck 20 percent at fault (for placing the coffee cup between her legs) and McDonald's 80 percent (for serving coffee at temperatures far higher than acceptable levels without warning). The case occurred in New Mexico, which uses the more contemporary Comparative Negligence standard for shared fault. Therefore, Liebeck's damages were reduced by twenty percent.

Here's the real question: would this case have had a different outcome had it occurred in Alabama, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, or the District of Columbia? Those jurisdictions still use the old Contributory Negligence standard. Under that standard, if the plaintiff is at fault in any way, she is barred from recovery, save for a "last clear chance" exception. Would Liebeck have been SOL, or would she have prevailed on “last clear chance”?

What's major differences are?

thanks.

Each state has a liability guideline of comparative negligence, modified comparative negligence, and contributory negligence. For the latter two, assuming you get past those relevant thresholds to recoup damages, does it then default to the the comparative negligence model where you're given a monetary percentage of whatever their liability was? Or does it vary by state, like for instance whoever is the majority responsible pays for everything regardless of the lesser percentage amount they themselves had for involvement?

Just letting everyone know where this discussion can be found in the Torts Conviser Mini Review, since it was missing from the lectures (and there was no handout) and this issue comes up frequently on the MBE and essays!

We all know that Maryland, D.C., Virginia, and North Carolina follow contributory negligence, but why is it that—aside from Alabama—these are the only places in the country that haven't made the switch to comparative negligence?

I've searched Google for an answer, but all of the results are just explanations of the difference between contributory and comparative negligence, rather than any kind of regional history of how contributory negligence stuck around here, which is something I'd be fascinated to learn more about.

I was in a car crash last month and my insurance company placed me 60% at fault, then decided I was 100% at fault. The police report and dash-cam footage from my car show instances of contributory negligence by the the other driver. Do I have any recourse against my insurance company handling this claim the way they have? I have escalated to a supervisor but they are refusing to take this to arbitration at my request.

Details below if interested...

Even though I have a police report and dash-cam video showing the other party breaking a laundry list of state traffic laws leading up to and during the crash, my insurance company is insisting they should pay the other driver's claim. The other driver is also on record saying she had no idea there was anyone behind her and can't remember if she had her turn signal on or not. They previously denied the other party's claim in writing (I have a copy) placing them 60% at fault. In North Carolina, if the other party is even 1% at fault, they cannot seek damages. It's ridiculous, TBH, but that's the way it is here. I've consulted with an attorney and several active and retired police officers who agree that my insurance company should advocate for me with the amount of evidence showing contributory negligence by the other driver. However, the insurance company insists they want to settle and pay the claim to the other driver. There were no tickets issued, no injuries, and the police report, my testimony, and the video I shared with the insurance company all line up. I was moving at perhaps 5mph at the moment of impact. I'm most miffed by the fact that the insurance company didn't even review my camera footage until I filed an official complaint against the adjustor and insisted. I made them aware of it in writing within a couple of days of the accident. The reason given for changing their course is that the other party provided CCTV footage from their church (low fidelity, low frame-rate, bad angle) that they believe places me 100% at fault. If the burden of proof is truly 100%, I don't understand how the other party breaking 3-4 North Carolina traffic statues on video is not being considered contributory negligence.

I'm attaching a copy of the diagram from the police report with all identifying information removed. I am "vehicle one" in the police report.

Police Report

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/8q15p83q6tk3fc4/Screen%20Shot%202019-07-01%20at%206.19.56%20PM.png?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.

Officially known as the "Motor Vehicle Collision Recovery Act Of 2015", the bill to reform contributory negligence for vulnerable road users effectively became law on 11/26/2016. It's now also known as Law Number L21-0167.

Here's the confirmation on LegiScan, for people like me who know better than to believe random commenters like me on Reddit:

https://legiscan.com/DC/bill/B21-0004/2015

Stay safe out there anyway - nobody wants to be the test case. :-)

Inspired from this post

Curious, generally speaking. It seems like it would be virtually impossible to win a vehicle crash lawsuit in VA unless you weren't even in your car and it was parked 100% properly somewhere.

How do insurers handle claims in pure contributory negligence states, auto or otherwise?

Are they the same thing in the majority of states now? I.e., the majority of states use them interchangeably for the idea that a plaintiff is partially responsible for his injuries and damages will be apportioned accordingly? Or has one term won out over the other? Is there a difference anymore? My professor keeps using them interchangeably and it's throwing me off.

If a delivery driver gets in a crash for not yielding, but can prove there was contributory negligence by the other person for speeding what happens?

The amount of damage did not meet my deductible, so I paid out of pocket for the repair. There was no police report taken at the time. My insurance company found the other party 100% at fault. The other insurance found that I may or may not be 1% at fault. Under Virginia law, this is still enough justification apparently for the other insurance company to deny liability.

My insurance company only paid out a little under $100 for a rental car while our car was repaired. My insurance company sent a subrogation demand for the rental car amount to the other insurance company. The other company denied the demand and continues to deny liability. Apparently arbitration costs ~$150 to file for, therefore, it is not worth it for my claim to go to arbitration.

At the end of the day, I got rear-ended and paid for those repairs. The other party got off without a scratch (didn't even have any major damage on their vehicle). I feel completely wronged even if the legal system is saying I am not.

Do I have any recourse here?

1. Can I pay the ~$150 arbitration fee for my insurance company to get the claim to arbitration? I'm confident I would win there.

2. Must arbitration be initiated by an insurance company or can I, as a private individual, initiate arbitration?

3. Is small claims court worth it as a last ditch option? The damages are between $500 and $1000.

4. Should my insurance company be stepping up to the plate for me here? I know this is a numbers game for them. If I drop them, they would literally be out money after one month of me not being a customer. Could I use this as leverage to get them to step up here?

Any feedback on my options here is greatly appreciated. Thanks so much.

Hi folks,

I'm doing a bit of research and really struggling - I'm trying to find cases of contributory negligence involving a motorcycle being hit by a car, does anyone have any cases that spring to mind?

So, in my torts class it seems like we have talked about contributory negligence in two different ways: as a jurisdiction and as a defense.

As far as jurisdictions go we have talked about contributory negligent jurisdictions and comparative negligence jurisdictions. I think we have also talked about contributory negligence as a defense against a negligence claim. (when I say "I think," there's a really high chance we have, I'm just confused).

So how is all of this used? This is what I have, and maybe someone can tell me if I'm on the right track and/or if i need to add new things to my thought process.

In a broad sense, comparative (and all the different types that follow from it) and contributory jurisdictions are more about how damages are apportioned. So in a contributory negligence jurisdiction, if the plaintiff is found to be negligent in any way they are barred from recovery. In a comparative jurisdiction, the plaintiff can (possible) recover a certain percentage depending on the "type" that jurisdiction follows.

Then we have contributory negligence as a defense.That defense can be used in any jurisdiction. The defense claims "i may be negligent, but so was he." THEN it depends on the jurisdiction as to how the defense fairs.

If this is all right, how does recklessness, assumption of risk, and mitigation fall in the jurisdiction sense?

Also, if this is all right, this isn't me trying to troll. Just trying to make sure I have it right in my heads.

Edit: Unfortunately my prof may not provide me with the jurisdiction (she didn't on our fake midterm), so I'm just trying to clear up any thing I may be wrong about in terms of Contributory negligence v. comparative negligence jurisdictions and then how contributory negligence could be used as a defense (if it is one) in either of the jurisdictions.

Hey guys, I am just wondering what you think of the fact that as per the wrongs act/ civil liabilities acts one can be found 100% CN, surely that is just non-sensical and I understand it is a result of the 2002-03 IPP report, wich intended to limit damages, but it is just so illogical.

I am a casualty adjuster in America in North Carolina and we have a claimant asking to see the statute that states he is barred from recovery if he contributes to his damages.

I consider myself pretty savvy in google-fu and am unable to find anything that can point me to the general statutes where it says that is the law. The best I've been able to do is find some legal sites pointing to case law ( Sorrells v. M.Y.B. Hospitality Ventures, 332 N.C. 645, 648 (1992) without statute and N.C.G.S.A. § 99B-4(3) which appears to me to only reference products liability.

From everything I can tell, it looks like contributory negligence as a defense is used solely as a matter of precedent, but not because it's actually a law anywhere, is this correct?

Can anyone help me out here? I'm going nuts that I can't find this. Thank you very much in advance!