Sentences with phrase «judge apportions»

Pursuant to the Contributory Negligence Act, RSA 2000, c C - 27, the trial judge apportions liability as follows: one - third to the driver and two - thirds to the cyclist.

The judge apportioned 67 percent of the fault to BP, 30 percent to Transocean, which owned the drillship, and 3 percent to Halliburton, which did cement work on the Macondo well.

The judge apportioned blame 70 % — 30 % as between defendant and claimant.

Not exact matches

This concept affects how a judge or jury apportions damages.

Usually, a winning SLAPP defendant has to apportion fees attributable to SLAPP activities, but this decision allows the trial judge to award extra-SLAPP fees as long as the other activities were «on the contract» under Civil Code section 1717 for purposes of fee recovery in the entire litigation matter.

The judge or jury then apportions liability according to the degree of fault of each defendant pursuant to contributory negligence legislation.

In different factual settings, this court held that a judge has jurisdiction under s. 1 of the Negligence Act to apportion fault against a person who is not a party to the action, and can exercise this jurisdiction in an appropriate case.

In the above example, the judge or jury determines the degree of the each party's negligence and apportions to each party a portion of the total damages you suffered based on each party's percentage of fault for causing your injury.

The judge was not apportioning liability against a non-party.

She expressed her provisional view that in the case of an indivisible psychiatric injury where it is not scientifically possible to establish the amount of the tortious material contribution to injury, it was not necessary for a judge to apportion damages across the board merely because one non-tortious cause had been in play.

Just like a pure comparative negligence system, a judge or jury decides how much fault should be allocated to each person responsible for an accident and apportions the amount of damages accordingly.

In a pure comparative negligence system, the judge or jury decides how much fault should be allocated to each person responsible for an accident, and then apportions the amount of damages accordingly.

The appellants argued that when the totality of the evidence relating to Ms. Bradford's fault is contrasted with Ms. Snyder's «brief but inopportune speedometer glance», it was wrong to apportion liability in the manner set out by the trial judge.

Although a different judge decided a fee request than the judge presiding over germane matters, the Murrells failed to cite authority as to why de novo review was warranted under the circumstances The trial court even apportioned out noncompensable work from compensable work, with the Murrells failing to pinpoint what aspects of the apportionment were wrong.