Sentences with phrase «of comparative fault»

Under this theory of comparative fault, a victim can also be held financially responsible if they played a role in causing their own accident.

There is an open issue of comparative fault but the law has been held to be strict.

This strategy is meant to take advantage of the rule of comparative fault, which reduces a victim's damages according to their degree of responsibility for causing an accident.

These new laws could impose a new element of comparative fault in bike - related accidents.

The law of comparative fault allows anyone injured in an accident to recover compensation as long as they are not entirely responsible for the injury - causing crash.

One benefit of comparative fault laws is that victims who contribute to their injury - causing accident are not barred from recovering compensation.

Under our rule of comparative fault, the defendant should be held responsible for his own negligence, if any.

Under the law of comparative fault, each negligent / liable party will be held financially responsible to the degree they contributed to the accident.

Other states and countries have adopted the doctrine of comparative fault, which «compares» the legal responsibility of the victim and the other parties, and provides compensation to the victim in direct proportion to the comparative responsibility of the parties (i.e., if the dog owner is 90 % responsible and the victim is only 10 % responsible, then the victim's compensation is reduced by his or her 10 % of fault).

The issue of comparative fault arises in multiple - vehicle accidents because, in many situations, the person who collided with another motorist may have only done so because they were in the middle of a chain reaction.

If an issue of comparative fault does arise in your case, contact a Boston car accident lawyer.

Our firm is ready to stand by the side of injured motorcyclists and their families, fighting back against allegations of comparative fault and placing the blame for a crash caused by a careless driver where it belongs.

States have different systems to handle instances of comparative fault, a situation in which more than one party is at fault for an accident.

On brief in maritime case before the United States Supreme Court; the unanimous Court, in affirming favorable judgments of the lower courts, held that the doctrine of superseding cause exists in admiralty and is consistent with the Court's earlier adoption of comparative fault principles

There are two kinds of comparative fault:

If he or she was a passenger in a car involved in an accident, they can not be held at fault for the incident, and Florida's policy of comparative fault would not apply to their claim.

Where a motorcycle is concerned, a common example of comparative fault might be where the motorcycle's headlamp, brake light, or tail light is out, especially if the accident happened at night.

Nebraska follows a theory of comparative fault in car accident cases, meaning that it takes into account the actions of both parties when determining who is eligible to receive injury compensation.

New Mexico follows the rule of comparative fault in most cases.

The issue of comparative fault in Maine personal injury lawsuits is a significant one because, depending on the degree of it, an injured person's right to collect damages may be significantly reduced or eliminated entirely.

Michigan follows the doctrine of comparative fault.

The lawsuit draws on principles of premises liability and the Dram Shop law, but it may also have to contend with issues of comparative fault.

This is because California law is designed to follow the theory of comparative fault.

California law follows the theory of comparative fault.

California law operates under the rule of comparative fault.

This is because California law operates using the theory of comparative fault.

These types of cases can be complex because defendants will almost always try to use the theory of comparative fault to lessen their culpability.

In California, the laws are based on the theory of comparative fault.

California law is based on the theory of comparative fault.

California follows the rule of comparative fault.

California law is based on the theory of comparative fault, which means that an accident victim can recover damages even if they contributed to the cause of their injury.