Pure Comparative Negligence, Case Study Example

Due to the nature of pure comparative negligence, it appears that Spaid is responsible for his injury, but the interventions of his friends make them partially responsible as well. Devin is the first individual to consider as responsible for Spaid’s injury because he triggers Spaid’s accident by side swiping his car, which causes Spaid to suffer from a broken tailbone, pinky injury, and severed right ear. Spaid’s friend with the pontoon boat is also partially responsible for the injuries that Spaid experienced thereafter, because as a pontoon boating professional, he should be aware that it is dangerous to jump into the boat from a bridge and thus should have advised his friend against doing so. Because Spaid’s boating friend did not provide this information, he contributed to this new injury because he allowed Spaid to believe that jumping would be safe by not acting. This lack of information also caused Spaid’s arms to be eaten by a shark.

Under pure comparative negligence, Devin, Spaid’s boasting friend, and Spaid are responsible for his injuries. Devin is primarily responsible because he triggers the actions that contribute to these events. Spaid and his boating friend also share liability because of misinformation in the case of the friend and a failure to consider the danger of the situation on the behalf of Spaid. A jury would therefore require Devin to pay for most of the damages. In this situation, it appears that 50% is appropriate. The boating friend may also have to pay some damages, which are expected to come to 25% or less. Spaid will need to cover the rest of his medical care because he is also about 25% responsible for the damage that he suffered.