Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
The man sued the customer, the owner of the range, and the manufacturer of the signaling apparatus. The jurisdiction prohibits a plaintiff from recovering against a defendant whose fault is less than or equal to that of the plaintiff.
A man who was visiting a shooting range misunderstood a signal that indicated shooting in progress and walked in front of another customer who was shooting toward a target. The man was hit by a bullet and seriously injured.
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
A is incorrect. The rule states that the man cannot recover against a defendant whose fault is less than or equal to his own. Each defendant's percentage of fault is considered individually and not aggregated among all defendants. If the jury finds the man was 25% responsible and that each defendant was also 25% responsible, the man cannot recover from any defendant.
B is incorrect. The rule states that the man cannot recover against a defendant whose fault is less than or equal to his own. Therefore, in addition to the owner and manufacturer, the man cannot recover from the customer since the man and all three defendants were each found to be 25% responsible.
C is incorrect. The man cannot recover any percentage from any defendant since none of the defendants were found to be more at fault than the man. Importantly, the fault of each defendant must be considered individually, not aggregated among the three defendants.