Sentences with phrase «doctrine of contributory negligence»

According to the legal doctrine of contributory negligence, if you are found to be in any way at fault for your own injuries, you would likely not be able to recover any compensation for your injuries and other related losses.

However, the state adheres to the harsh, ancient doctrine of contributory negligence, which does not permit a victim to recover if his own actions contributed even just one percent to the cause of the accident.

DC adheres to the ancient and inhumane doctrine of contributory negligence.

He or she may try to argue you somehow were at least partially at fault by raising the doctrine of contributory negligence (this means if the insurance company can prove you were in any way at fault, you may be barred from receiving compensation).

The Commonwealth of Virginia still holds to the doctrine of contributory negligence, meaning that if the plaintiff (the person injured by someone else's actions or failure to act) is found to be in any way responsible for causing their own injury, this will bar any recovery to the plaintiff.

Virginia follows the doctrine of contributory negligence.

With this said, however, in the District of Columbia, as well as in neighboring Maryland and Virginia, the doctrine of contributory negligence also comes into play.

Ontario adheres to the doctrine of contributory negligence.

the doctrine of contributory negligence has often been conflated with various other rules including the defence of voluntary assumption of risk, the defence of illegality, the mitigation of damage principle and the doctrine of provocation;

the traditional definition of the doctrine of contributory negligence is incomplete because it fails to account for the doctrine's frequent exclusion for reasons of public policy;

McBride and Bagshaw seem to regard the way in which the doctrine of contributory negligence is classified as having only theoretical significance.

Accordingly, it is possible for a defendant to agitate the doctrine of contributory negligence despite having default judgment [15] or summary judgment [16] entered against him or her.

[12] Therefore, the 1945 Act moved the doctrine of contributory negligence out of the law of liability and into the law of remedies.

[14] Things would be different in this connection were the doctrine of contributory negligence a liability rule.

Second, classifying the doctrine of contributory negligence as a remedial rule has implications for default judgments and summary judgments.

Is the doctrine of contributory negligence part of the law of liability or the law of remedies?

This would not be the case were the doctrine of contributory negligence a liability rule.

Prior to 1945, there could not have been a serious argument as to how the doctrine of contributory negligence ought to have been classified.

the doctrine of contributory negligence is part of the law of remedies and not, as is widely thought, the law of liability;

[13] Because the doctrine of contributory negligence is a remedial rule, it does not affect the verdict, and is therefore of no significance in so far as the costs shifting rule is concerned.

The doctrine of contributory negligence is one of the most important rules in the law of torts, both in practical and in theoretical terms.

Because the role of appellate courts in the day - to - day application of the doctrine of contributory negligence is so limited, scholars may be under the impression that it does not raise especially difficult or important points of law.

In summary, most textbook writers need to relocate their treatment of the doctrine of contributory negligence.

[2] An illuminating discussion of several philosophical questions presented by the doctrine of contributory negligence is offered in K Simons, «The Puzzling Doctrine of Contributory Negligence» (1995) 16 Cardozo Law Review 1693.

Possibly as a result of the general juristic neglect of the doctrine of contributory negligence, many erroneous beliefs about it have flourished.

What is the reason for the lack of scholarly interest in the doctrine of contributory negligence?