What is comparative negligence and strict liability in tort law?

Imagine a drunk driver named Frank struck a plaintiff's car which was illegally parked- it was sticking out too far into the street, and the parking meter had expired. If the driver hadn't been drunk, he probably could have avoided hitting the car. However, the careless way the car was parked did help cause the accident.

Which one of the following statements is correct?
A. Frank could raise the defense of comparative negligence, depending on the jurisdiction. In most provinces, the effect of this defense would simply be to lessen the award to the owner of the parked car by the percentage he was responsible for the accident.
B. The defense of assumption of risk is Frank's best bet.
C. Frank could raise the defense of the plantiff's negligence. In most provinces, if the plaintiff's negligence was partly to blame for the injury, the plaintiff can't recover anything.
D. By failing to put money in the parking meter, the plaintiff violated a statute and is liable under the doctrine of negligence per se.

Which one of the following is not an element of strict liability?
A. Defective product
B. Seller sells to buyer
C. Buyer suffers physical injury
D. With intent to mislead buyer

A neighbor's tree branch partially broke in an ice storm two months ago. Ever since the storm, the branch strikes your window whenever the wind blows. Since the neighbor is vacationing in Florida for three months, you decide to saw the branch yourself. In the event of a lawsuit, your defense will be
A. privilege to abate a nuisance.
B. defense of property.
C. failure to investigate.
D. contributory negligence.

Apply Now!
You'll get lots of targetted traffic to your website and new client leads!