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.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
31. If the plaintiff chooses to pursue the claim against the truck driver alone, she will be entitled to collect at most
Assume that the state has retained the common-law rule pertaining to contribution and that the state's comparative negligence statute provides for a system of pure comparative negligence but abolishes joint and several liability.
A plaintiff sustained personal injuries in a three-vehicle collision caused by the concurrent negligence of all three drivers. In the plaintiff's action for damages against the other two drivers, the jury apportioned the negligence 30% to the plaintiff, 30% to a truck driver, and 40% to a cab driver. The plaintiff's total damages were $100,000.
Comments (0)
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
C is correct. Here, the plaintiff was 30% at fault. Thus, the plaintiff can recover at most 70% of his damages. Because this question specifies that joint and several liability has been abolished in the jurisdiction, the plaintiff can recover only the amount of harm attributable to each driver.
Since the truck driver was 30% at fault, the plaintiff may recover 30% of her total damages from the truck driver ($30,000). Similarly, the plaintiff could recover 40% of her damages from the cab driver because the cab driver was 40% at fault. The plaintiff may not recover the remaining 30% attributable to her own fault.
This answer correctly states that the plaintiff may recover $30,000 from the truck driver. Additionally, if the plaintiff recovers $30,000 from the truck driver, there is no basis for the truck driver to recover anything from the cab driver through contribution because contribution applies when one defendant has paid more than the amount properly attributed to that defendant. Since the truck driver is paying only $30,000 and was 30% at fault for the $100,000 damages, the truck driver has no basis for seeking contribution from the cab driver.
A is incorrect. This answer choice applies joint and several liability because it would allow the plaintiff to recover the full amount of her damages ($70,000) from one tortfeasor, the truck driver. The plaintiff suffered damages of $100,000, but because she was 30% at fault, she cannot recover that portion of the damages from the defendants. The plaintiff's max recovery is $70,000 in total. The plaintiff may not recover all of that amount from one defendant, however, because that is possible here only under joint and several liability, and this question specifies joint and several liability has been abolished.
B is incorrect. This answer choice correctly recognizes that the plaintiff may recover $30,000 from the truck driver. However, it also states the truck driver can recover $10,000 from the cab driver, but there is no basis in law on these facts for that to occur. The truck driver would normally be entitled to recover from the cab driver for amounts the truck driver paid that the cab driver should have paid. However, all the truck driver paid was the $30,000 attributable to the 30% fault the truck driver had for the plaintiff's $100,000 in damages. Thus, there is nothing that the cab driver owes the truck driver.
D is incorrect. This answer choice is not applying pure comparative negligence. The MBE instructs test takers to apply pure comparative negligence unless otherwise directed. This question goes a step further and specifies that pure comparative negligence applies in this jurisdiction. Under pure comparative negligence, the plaintiff may recover all of her damages except the percentage attributed to her own fault, and she may recover that amount even if she was more at fault/negligent than other parties involved.