Question

1. Explain the difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence.
2. How is actual cause different from proximate cause?
3. What is an example of assumption of risk?
4. How does res ipsa loquitur help a plaintiff establish a case of negligence?

Answer 1

Answer to 1:

The main difference between comparative negligence and contributory negligence is that:comparative negligence seeks to compensate the injured party(plaintiff) at least a part of his or her injury(ie: reduced by the percentage of injuries which have been caused by the plaintiff's own negligence):on the other hand:contributory negligence will not award even if the plaintiff is 1% responsible for the injuries.

Let us understand this with the help of an example:

Suppose a pedestrian was crossing the street and got hit by a car .In case of contributory negligence : he will not be awarded if he failed to look both ways before crossing or if was not crossing by using the designated crossing spot.On the other hand in case of comparative negligence:he will be awarded 90% assuming that he is 10% responsible for the accident.

Answer 2:

Actual Cause in simple terms means the genuine cause for an accident .Proximate Cause on the other hand is what the law recognizes as the actual cause of the accident ie: the legal cause.

Example:

Suppose a bus hits the car and the car driver gets injured.The bus hitting the car is the actual cause in this case.On the the accident would not have occurred  but for the bus jumping the red light:this is the proximate cause.

Answer 3:

Alex is an avid bungee jumper .He goes on a bungee jumping trip.The company sponsoring this trip makes Alex sign a contract detailing the risks involved in such jumps.On the forth jump: Alex falls and injures himself .He sues the company for negligence.However he loses the suit because he had signed a contract detailing the risks involved and also because he is an avid bungee jumper he was aware of the risks.This is an example of assumption of risk.

Answer 4:

The term: res ipsa loquitor is a latin phrase which means The thing speaks for itself.

Let us understand the application of this with the help of an example:

Spectators in a high school are watching a basketball game on bleachers, now the bleachers collapse and the spectators get injured.So they file a personal injury case against the high school which built and maintained those bleachers..However the spectators does not know what caused the collapse of the bleachers.

Now if the res ipsa loquitor is applied thenthe following points will have to be proved:

• The injury would not have ordinarily occurred in the absence of any negligence
• The instrument that caused this injury was in the exclusive control of the defendant.
• The plaintiff did not contribute to the injury by their own negligence.

Now if the judge in the above case applied this principle :then the spectators would not have to show any specific negligence of the school .They simply have to prove: bleachers do not ordinarily collapse in the absence of any negligence, the school had the exclusive control of the bleachers and they did not contribute to the collapse of the bleachers by their own negligence .