1 00:00:00,040 --> 00:00:01,720 All right, legal eagles, you ready for this? 2 00:00:02,080 --> 00:00:05,120 We're going deep on comparative negligence today. 3 00:00:06,280 --> 00:00:08,360 Yeah, comparative negligence. A good one. 4 00:00:08,360 --> 00:00:10,720 You know this is going to be on your torts exam, so we better 5 00:00:10,720 --> 00:00:12,400 get it right. Absolutely, yeah. 6 00:00:12,400 --> 00:00:15,520 For law students especially, you got to know the stuff inside and 7 00:00:15,520 --> 00:00:16,800 out. You know, it seems kind of 8 00:00:16,800 --> 00:00:20,120 simple on the surface, but yeah. But it can get really twisty. 9 00:00:20,120 --> 00:00:22,080 So let's, like, start with the basics, OK? 10 00:00:22,080 --> 00:00:26,160 We all know negligence, right? Yeah, you got to prove somebody 11 00:00:26,160 --> 00:00:29,280 didn't act reasonably. Breach their duty of care, yeah. 12 00:00:29,560 --> 00:00:31,320 And caused harm, Right? Right. 13 00:00:31,480 --> 00:00:35,000 So like what happens when the plaintiff, you know, the person 14 00:00:35,000 --> 00:00:36,840 suing? Yeah, they're not totally 15 00:00:36,840 --> 00:00:39,040 innocent. That's where we get into 16 00:00:39,040 --> 00:00:41,560 comparative negligence. It's not always black and white. 17 00:00:41,560 --> 00:00:43,880 Right. Like in real life accidents, 18 00:00:43,960 --> 00:00:45,960 almost never just one person's fault, right? 19 00:00:45,960 --> 00:00:47,720 Exactly. I think it used to be different 20 00:00:47,720 --> 00:00:48,760 though, right? Didn't we used to have 21 00:00:48,760 --> 00:00:51,720 contributory negligence? Yes, much harsher. 22 00:00:52,200 --> 00:00:55,080 Think back to the old case Butterfield V Forester I. 23 00:00:55,120 --> 00:00:58,560 Remember that one vaguely? The plaintiff was injured riding 24 00:00:58,560 --> 00:01:01,200 his horse. He ran into something, the 25 00:01:01,200 --> 00:01:04,680 defendant left in the road OK, but he was riding too fast, 26 00:01:05,760 --> 00:01:09,120 couldn't recover any damages. So even if he was like 1% at 27 00:01:09,120 --> 00:01:11,480 fault. Didn't matter, total bar to 28 00:01:11,480 --> 00:01:13,280 recovery. That's rough, No wonder they 29 00:01:13,280 --> 00:01:14,800 changed it. Right. 30 00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:17,960 Thankfully in the 20th century things started moving toward a 31 00:01:17,960 --> 00:01:21,600 fairer system. OK, Wisconsin was 1st 1931. 32 00:01:21,640 --> 00:01:25,760 Wow, Wisconsin leading the way. They got rid of contributory 33 00:01:25,760 --> 00:01:28,760 negligence and said let's try this comparative negligence 34 00:01:28,760 --> 00:01:29,880 thing. Much fairer. 35 00:01:29,880 --> 00:01:32,160 Yes. Makes sense, like accidents are 36 00:01:32,440 --> 00:01:34,800 rarely just one person's fault. Yeah, exactly. 37 00:01:35,200 --> 00:01:38,000 But it wasn't just about, you know, being nice, right? 38 00:01:38,160 --> 00:01:40,360 It goes deeper. There was some like legal ideas 39 00:01:40,360 --> 00:01:42,000 behind. It we have philosophical even. 40 00:01:42,000 --> 00:01:43,600 OK, well, you're the expert here. 41 00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,000 Lay it on us. OK, so we have these fundamental 42 00:01:46,000 --> 00:01:48,720 principles of tort law, like corrective justice. 43 00:01:48,720 --> 00:01:51,720 Corrective justice and. Basically saying the law should 44 00:01:51,720 --> 00:01:55,360 right the wrong make the person who caused the harm responsible 45 00:01:55,360 --> 00:01:57,760 for fixing it. But comparative negligence 46 00:01:57,760 --> 00:01:59,960 recognizes both sides can contribute. 47 00:02:00,840 --> 00:02:04,080 So it's shared responsibility. Exactly, got to divide up the 48 00:02:04,080 --> 00:02:06,320 liability. Make the punishment fit the 49 00:02:06,320 --> 00:02:08,280 crime, as they say. Exactly. 50 00:02:08,639 --> 00:02:12,080 But then there's this other idea, economic efficiency. 51 00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:14,400 Oh, that's a good one. Yeah, if everyone's held 52 00:02:14,400 --> 00:02:17,400 accountable even a little bit, people are going to be more 53 00:02:17,400 --> 00:02:18,800 careful. Makes sense. 54 00:02:18,800 --> 00:02:21,240 Like, you know, you might have to pay up, so you're going to 55 00:02:21,240 --> 00:02:23,120 think twice before doing something risky. 56 00:02:23,160 --> 00:02:25,520 Right. But wait a minute, I learned 57 00:02:25,520 --> 00:02:27,880 about this in torts. Isn't there like two different 58 00:02:27,880 --> 00:02:31,200 types of comparative negligence? You're right, it's not all the 59 00:02:31,200 --> 00:02:34,360 same. We got pure and modified I 60 00:02:34,360 --> 00:02:36,960 think. Yes, that's crucial to remember. 61 00:02:36,960 --> 00:02:39,440 Those are the two main types. OK, we'll break it down for us. 62 00:02:39,440 --> 00:02:41,560 Let's start with pure. OK, so pure comparative 63 00:02:41,560 --> 00:02:45,000 negligence, says the plaintiff can get damages no matter how 64 00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:45,960 much they were at. Fault. 65 00:02:45,960 --> 00:02:48,960 So even if they were like, I don't know, 90% responsible. 66 00:02:48,960 --> 00:02:51,560 They could still get 10% from the defendant. 67 00:02:51,680 --> 00:02:55,840 Wow, so even if you messed up pretty bad you can still get 68 00:02:55,840 --> 00:02:57,920 something? Yeah, some states really like 69 00:02:57,920 --> 00:02:59,600 that idea, proportional recovery. 70 00:02:59,760 --> 00:03:00,480 Like which? Which ones? 71 00:03:00,480 --> 00:03:03,600 California, New York, They're big on pure comparative 72 00:03:03,600 --> 00:03:05,920 negligence. OK, There's a really important 73 00:03:05,920 --> 00:03:07,880 case. Levy Yellow, Capco. 74 00:03:07,880 --> 00:03:09,560 Oh. Yeah, I remember reading that. 75 00:03:09,560 --> 00:03:12,840 One, this was big 1975 total turning point in California. 76 00:03:12,840 --> 00:03:15,080 Go ahead. Before this, California was all 77 00:03:15,080 --> 00:03:18,960 about contributory negligence. Oh, right, so no recovery if you 78 00:03:18,960 --> 00:03:23,040 were even a little bit at fault. Yeah, but this case changed 79 00:03:23,040 --> 00:03:25,680 everything. Shifted the focus to dividing up 80 00:03:25,680 --> 00:03:27,800 the fault. OK, big win for fairness then, 81 00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:29,680 right? So what about modified? 82 00:03:29,680 --> 00:03:33,080 What's the deal with that one? It's a bit more well modified, 83 00:03:33,080 --> 00:03:35,280 OK. They say there's a limit how 84 00:03:35,280 --> 00:03:36,800 much fault the plaintiff can have. 85 00:03:37,720 --> 00:03:39,200 So if you're too much at fault, you get nothing. 86 00:03:40,040 --> 00:03:41,400 Exactly makes sense. Yeah. 87 00:03:41,480 --> 00:03:42,960 So what's the limit? How do they decide? 88 00:03:43,000 --> 00:03:46,400 Two main ways, 50% bar rule and 51% bar rule. 89 00:03:46,640 --> 00:03:49,040 OK, that's a lot of rules. Yeah, 50% bar rule. 90 00:03:49,040 --> 00:03:50,240 Well, that's pretty straightforward. 91 00:03:50,280 --> 00:03:53,120 Plaintiffs 50% or more at fault, no recovery. 92 00:03:53,280 --> 00:03:55,680 OK, Texas, Georgia, they like that rule. 93 00:03:55,680 --> 00:03:57,040 Good. What about the 51 percent? 94 00:03:57,120 --> 00:04:01,240 Very similar, but the plaintiff can be 50% at fault and still 95 00:04:01,240 --> 00:04:04,240 recover, but 51 percent or more they get nothing. 96 00:04:04,680 --> 00:04:07,080 So you got to be less at fault than the defendant, basically. 97 00:04:07,080 --> 00:04:09,680 Yeah. Man, that's a lot to remember. 98 00:04:09,880 --> 00:04:11,680 It is. But OK, let's say we know which 99 00:04:11,680 --> 00:04:14,800 rule applies. How do they actually decide how 100 00:04:14,800 --> 00:04:16,720 much each person is at fault? Yeah. 101 00:04:16,720 --> 00:04:18,240 I mean, is it just like a guessing game? 102 00:04:18,680 --> 00:04:20,160 Well, it's not that simple. OK, good. 103 00:04:20,160 --> 00:04:21,399 Because that wouldn't be very fair. 104 00:04:21,399 --> 00:04:22,960 No, it's a whole process all. Right. 105 00:04:22,960 --> 00:04:24,600 So walk us through it. What's the first step? 106 00:04:24,680 --> 00:04:27,760 Well, first we got to figure out if both the plaintiff and the 107 00:04:27,760 --> 00:04:29,640 defendant were actually negligent. 108 00:04:29,720 --> 00:04:33,080 Right, back to the basics. Duty, breach, causation, all 109 00:04:33,080 --> 00:04:34,120 that. Exactly. 110 00:04:34,280 --> 00:04:37,680 But then how do we decide how negligent? 111 00:04:37,680 --> 00:04:39,760 I mean, is it like 20 percent, 80%? 112 00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:43,000 How do they figure that out? That's the tricky part. 113 00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:46,040 OK, help us out here. It's not just what happened, 114 00:04:46,040 --> 00:04:48,040 it's what a reasonable person would have done. 115 00:04:48,320 --> 00:04:50,440 Oh right, the reasonable person standard. 116 00:04:50,440 --> 00:04:53,720 Oh, he's got to remember that. OK, so the court will look at 117 00:04:53,720 --> 00:04:55,640 everything? What do you mean by everything? 118 00:04:55,800 --> 00:04:59,680 Witness testimony, expert opinions, police reports, OK, 119 00:04:59,800 --> 00:05:01,880 sometimes even accident reconstruction. 120 00:05:01,880 --> 00:05:04,560 All kinds of evidence. To get the full picture right. 121 00:05:04,760 --> 00:05:06,880 So they're like detectives piercing the other the. 122 00:05:06,880 --> 00:05:07,920 Clues. Exactly. 123 00:05:07,920 --> 00:05:11,240 And remember always asking, would a reasonable person have 124 00:05:11,240 --> 00:05:12,520 acted this way? Yeah. 125 00:05:12,520 --> 00:05:14,640 Like would a reasonable person speed? 126 00:05:15,000 --> 00:05:17,280 Would they text and drive that kind of thing? 127 00:05:17,280 --> 00:05:18,840 That's what the court has to decide. 128 00:05:18,840 --> 00:05:20,880 OK, so they've looked at the evidence. 129 00:05:21,240 --> 00:05:23,000 They've thought about the reasonable person. 130 00:05:23,000 --> 00:05:25,280 Yeah. Now how do they go from that to 131 00:05:25,320 --> 00:05:27,240 a percentage? Do they just like pick a number? 132 00:05:27,600 --> 00:05:30,600 It's not totally random, but there's definitely some 133 00:05:30,600 --> 00:05:34,400 judgement involved. OK, judges, juries, they got to 134 00:05:34,400 --> 00:05:35,560 weigh the evidence and make a call. 135 00:05:35,560 --> 00:05:37,640 So there's room for debate. Absolutely. 136 00:05:37,800 --> 00:05:40,640 That's where good lawyers come in, making a strong case for 137 00:05:40,640 --> 00:05:42,560 their client. Right, you got to convince them 138 00:05:42,560 --> 00:05:44,800 your client was less at fault. Exactly. 139 00:05:45,000 --> 00:05:47,280 OK, so let's say they've got the percentages figured out. 140 00:05:48,160 --> 00:05:50,480 What happens then? That's when we calculate the 141 00:05:50,480 --> 00:05:53,120 damages. OK, so let's say, I don't know, 142 00:05:53,120 --> 00:05:55,320 somebody gets awarded $100,000, right? 143 00:05:55,960 --> 00:06:00,320 But they were 30% at fault. Then they only get 70,000. 144 00:06:00,400 --> 00:06:04,120 OK, so their compensation gets reduced based on their fault. 145 00:06:04,480 --> 00:06:06,520 Exactly. But hold on, We've been talking 146 00:06:06,520 --> 00:06:08,200 like it's always just two people involved. 147 00:06:08,440 --> 00:06:10,360 Yeah. What happens when you throw in 148 00:06:10,360 --> 00:06:12,600 more people like multiple defendants? 149 00:06:12,800 --> 00:06:15,080 Oh, that's when things are really interesting. 150 00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:17,440 OK, well don't leave us hanging. We got to get to the bottom of 151 00:06:17,440 --> 00:06:19,280 this. Multi party cases, That's a 152 00:06:19,280 --> 00:06:21,600 whole other challenge all. Right, well, let's dive in. 153 00:06:21,800 --> 00:06:24,520 What are some things we need to know about these multi party 154 00:06:24,520 --> 00:06:25,640 situations? OK. 155 00:06:25,640 --> 00:06:30,280 So one big idea is joint and several liability. 156 00:06:30,320 --> 00:06:33,840 Joint and several liability, OK. This means the plaintiff could 157 00:06:33,840 --> 00:06:36,640 get the entire judgement from any of the defendants. 158 00:06:37,080 --> 00:06:39,520 What, even if that defendant was only a little bit at fault? 159 00:06:39,600 --> 00:06:42,400 Yeah, even if they're only like 20% responsible. 160 00:06:42,520 --> 00:06:46,560 So if one defendant is rich, the plaintiff could just go after 161 00:06:46,560 --> 00:06:48,360 them for the whole thing. Exactly. 162 00:06:48,640 --> 00:06:51,560 Wow, that's wild. So where does this joint and 163 00:06:51,560 --> 00:06:54,720 several liability thing happen? New York, for example. 164 00:06:54,720 --> 00:06:57,880 They use it with pure comparative negligence. 165 00:06:57,960 --> 00:07:02,240 So in New York you could be partially at fault and still get 166 00:07:02,240 --> 00:07:05,360 full damages from 1 defendant. Exactly. 167 00:07:05,400 --> 00:07:08,320 That seems kind of, I don't know, risky for defendants. 168 00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:10,600 It can be. But what if one of the 169 00:07:10,600 --> 00:07:13,880 defendants can't pay? That's a tricky situation. 170 00:07:13,880 --> 00:07:16,040 Yeah, what happened to? That the other defendants might 171 00:07:16,040 --> 00:07:18,960 have to cover it, even if they were only a little bit at fault. 172 00:07:19,040 --> 00:07:21,920 So one person's bad luck could become everyone else's problem. 173 00:07:21,920 --> 00:07:25,000 Yeah, it can happen. OK, so that's joint and several 174 00:07:25,000 --> 00:07:28,080 liability. What else makes these multi 175 00:07:28,080 --> 00:07:31,480 party cases complicated? Well, what happens when somebody 176 00:07:31,480 --> 00:07:33,840 involved in the accident isn't part of the lawsuit? 177 00:07:34,200 --> 00:07:36,760 Like they just took off. Yeah, hit and run. 178 00:07:36,760 --> 00:07:39,000 Or sometimes you just can't figure out who it was. 179 00:07:39,080 --> 00:07:40,480 OK. Yeah, that makes things tough. 180 00:07:40,520 --> 00:07:43,680 Right. How do you allocate fault when 181 00:07:43,680 --> 00:07:45,120 you're missing a piece of the puzzle? 182 00:07:45,120 --> 00:07:46,720 Like a mystery novel or. Something right? 183 00:07:46,720 --> 00:07:48,640 The courts have to figure out what to do. 184 00:07:48,640 --> 00:07:51,160 They don't want to punish the plaintiff or the other 185 00:07:51,160 --> 00:07:54,440 defendants unfairly, right? But they also have to account 186 00:07:54,440 --> 00:07:57,280 for the fact that someone else might be partly responsible. 187 00:07:57,280 --> 00:07:59,440 So they got to get creative. Exactly. 188 00:07:59,440 --> 00:08:02,240 Man, Multi party cases sound like a real headache. 189 00:08:02,640 --> 00:08:04,880 They can be. All right, so we've tackled the 190 00:08:04,880 --> 00:08:07,960 multi party mayhem. Are there any other frontiers of 191 00:08:07,960 --> 00:08:10,000 comparative negligence we should know about? 192 00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:12,960 I feel like this is popping up everywhere these days. 193 00:08:13,000 --> 00:08:15,480 You're right, it's a concept that keeps evolving. 194 00:08:15,680 --> 00:08:18,600 OK, we'll spill the tea. What else is going on with 195 00:08:18,600 --> 00:08:22,080 comparative negligence? It's making waves in product 196 00:08:22,080 --> 00:08:24,560 liability cases. Product liability? 197 00:08:24,680 --> 00:08:27,800 Wait, isn't that about holding companies responsible for bad 198 00:08:27,800 --> 00:08:30,120 products? Yeah, but it used to be all 199 00:08:30,120 --> 00:08:32,600 about strict liability. Right, like the company's always 200 00:08:32,600 --> 00:08:34,520 responsible no matter what. Exactly. 201 00:08:34,679 --> 00:08:37,640 But now courts are starting to recognize that sometimes the 202 00:08:37,640 --> 00:08:41,400 plaintiff's negligence can contribute to the harm. 203 00:08:41,880 --> 00:08:45,280 So like if you use a product wrong, you're partially to 204 00:08:45,280 --> 00:08:47,120 blame. Yeah, the company still has to 205 00:08:47,120 --> 00:08:50,920 make safe products, but if the plaintiff misuses it, their 206 00:08:50,920 --> 00:08:52,640 damages might get reduced. OK. 207 00:08:52,640 --> 00:08:55,120 So it's not just about the product being defective, it's 208 00:08:55,120 --> 00:08:56,880 about how it was used too, right? 209 00:08:57,080 --> 00:08:59,400 Any examples? Yeah, there was a case with the 210 00:08:59,400 --> 00:09:01,120 ladder, OK. It collapsed. 211 00:09:01,120 --> 00:09:03,520 The plaintiff was injured. But the ladder was defective, 212 00:09:03,520 --> 00:09:05,120 right? Yeah, but the plaintiff hadn't 213 00:09:05,120 --> 00:09:08,080 locked the safety latches. Oh, so they didn't use it 214 00:09:08,080 --> 00:09:09,440 properly? Exactly. 215 00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:13,840 So the court said, OK, the company was negligent, but so 216 00:09:13,840 --> 00:09:16,600 was the plaintiff. And they divided up the fault. 217 00:09:16,800 --> 00:09:18,680 Yeah, just like we talked about. Interesting. 218 00:09:18,680 --> 00:09:21,520 So even in product liability, it's not always black and white. 219 00:09:21,560 --> 00:09:23,560 It rarely is. OK, now I got to ask. 220 00:09:23,560 --> 00:09:26,000 Go ahead. Is there any limit to this 221 00:09:26,040 --> 00:09:29,400 comparative negligence stuff? Like can you use it with 222 00:09:29,400 --> 00:09:33,120 intentional torts? That's a great question and it's 223 00:09:33,120 --> 00:09:34,920 causing a lot of debate right now. 224 00:09:35,160 --> 00:09:39,400 OK, I'm intrigued. So traditionally intentional 225 00:09:39,400 --> 00:09:43,760 torts like assault or battery, they were totally separate from 226 00:09:43,760 --> 00:09:45,920 negligence. Right, because with those you're 227 00:09:45,920 --> 00:09:47,320 intentionally trying to hurt someone. 228 00:09:47,320 --> 00:09:49,160 Exactly. Negligence is about being 229 00:09:49,160 --> 00:09:51,040 careless, not intentional. Right? 230 00:09:51,200 --> 00:09:53,560 But as always, there are Gray areas. 231 00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:56,200 OK, I'm listening. What about those cases where you 232 00:09:56,200 --> 00:09:59,600 have a mix of intentional and negligent? 233 00:09:59,800 --> 00:10:01,880 What do you mean? Well, like what if somebody 234 00:10:01,880 --> 00:10:05,880 provokes someone else to attack them and then sues for their 235 00:10:05,880 --> 00:10:07,880 injuries? So they were kind of asking for 236 00:10:07,880 --> 00:10:08,760 it. In a way, yeah. 237 00:10:08,880 --> 00:10:12,240 Some courts say absolutely not. No comparative negligence for 238 00:10:12,240 --> 00:10:14,480 intentional torts. Makes sense, you shouldn't get a 239 00:10:14,480 --> 00:10:16,880 discount just because the victim was kind of annoying. 240 00:10:17,120 --> 00:10:19,960 Right got to hold people accountable for intentional 241 00:10:19,960 --> 00:10:24,040 harm, but other courts are more open to looking at the 242 00:10:24,040 --> 00:10:27,160 plaintiff's actions really. Even in those situations. 243 00:10:27,160 --> 00:10:29,840 Yeah, especially if those actions directly led to the 244 00:10:29,840 --> 00:10:32,200 harm. So like maybe the provocation 245 00:10:32,200 --> 00:10:34,320 was really bad, so the court takes that into account. 246 00:10:34,320 --> 00:10:36,560 That's the idea. Wow, so even with intentional 247 00:10:36,560 --> 00:10:38,240 torts there's no easy answer? Nope. 248 00:10:38,560 --> 00:10:40,440 Sounds like a real legal puzzle. It is. 249 00:10:41,560 --> 00:10:43,320 All right, so we've covered a lot of ground here. 250 00:10:43,480 --> 00:10:46,080 We have. From history to multi party 251 00:10:46,080 --> 00:10:50,360 cases to product liability, even intentional torts. 252 00:10:50,360 --> 00:10:53,040 Lots to think about. I think we need to see how all 253 00:10:53,040 --> 00:10:55,680 this plays out in a real case, you know, see how it works in 254 00:10:55,680 --> 00:10:56,960 practice. Absolutely. 255 00:10:57,000 --> 00:11:00,360 A good case study always helps. If you have one in mind. 256 00:11:00,560 --> 00:11:03,200 I do. How about Guptford V Filler? 257 00:11:04,960 --> 00:11:07,120 A case with a name I can actually remember. 258 00:11:07,200 --> 00:11:08,760 This one's a good one, pretty recent too. 259 00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:11,880 OK, sell me on it. What happened in Guptford V 260 00:11:11,880 --> 00:11:14,600 Filler? It's a classic driver and a 261 00:11:14,600 --> 00:11:16,800 cyclist, both approaching an intersection. 262 00:11:17,080 --> 00:11:19,640 OK, I'm picturing it. Driver's got the green light. 263 00:11:19,680 --> 00:11:21,400 Cyclist is heading towards a red uh. 264 00:11:21,720 --> 00:11:25,920 Oh, sounds like trouble. You guessed it, cyclist runs the 265 00:11:25,920 --> 00:11:27,800 red light. Classic cyclist move. 266 00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:30,880 But here's the twist. The driver was distracted 267 00:11:31,040 --> 00:11:33,880 looking at their phone. Oh no, texting and driving. 268 00:11:33,960 --> 00:11:36,880 Yep, so we got a distracted driver and a cyclist who doesn't 269 00:11:36,880 --> 00:11:38,800 stop for the red. Talk about shared 270 00:11:38,800 --> 00:11:41,280 responsibility. And of course they collide. 271 00:11:41,400 --> 00:11:45,040 Cyclist is injured pretty badly. Oof, sounds messy. 272 00:11:45,080 --> 00:11:48,640 It was Cyclist sued the driver. So this is where comparative 273 00:11:48,640 --> 00:11:51,080 negligence comes in, right? Exactly. 274 00:11:51,080 --> 00:11:52,920 Court had to decide who was more at fault. 275 00:11:53,280 --> 00:11:55,120 That's right. Distracted driving versus 276 00:11:55,120 --> 00:11:56,920 running a red light. Tough call. 277 00:11:56,960 --> 00:11:58,560 Yeah, no kidding. So what happened? 278 00:11:58,640 --> 00:12:02,000 The court looked at everything, considered all the evidence, 279 00:12:02,280 --> 00:12:04,240 decided they were both negligent. 280 00:12:04,680 --> 00:12:07,120 Not surprising. But they said the driver was 281 00:12:07,120 --> 00:12:09,400 more at fault. Even though the cyclist ran the 282 00:12:09,400 --> 00:12:13,720 red light, Yes. 70% fault for the driver, 30% for the cyclist. 283 00:12:13,840 --> 00:12:16,720 Wow, so the distracted driving was worse than running the red 284 00:12:16,720 --> 00:12:18,800 light? In this case, yeah, the court 285 00:12:18,800 --> 00:12:21,840 really focused on that distraction as a major factor in 286 00:12:21,840 --> 00:12:23,640 the accident. OK, so now we've got the fault 287 00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:26,320 divided up right? How does that affect what the 288 00:12:26,320 --> 00:12:28,880 cyclist gets? Well, the cyclist got damages 289 00:12:28,880 --> 00:12:32,520 for their injuries, but they were reduced by 30%. 290 00:12:32,520 --> 00:12:33,880 Because of their own fault. Exactly. 291 00:12:34,200 --> 00:12:37,480 This case is a good reminder that even if you're injured, 292 00:12:37,720 --> 00:12:40,160 your own actions can still affect what you get. 293 00:12:40,280 --> 00:12:41,960 Absolutely. And those percentages? 294 00:12:41,960 --> 00:12:43,680 They really matter. They can make all the 295 00:12:43,680 --> 00:12:46,080 difference. All right, we've covered so much 296 00:12:46,080 --> 00:12:46,760 ground today. It's. 297 00:12:46,840 --> 00:12:48,440 Been a good deep dive. History. 298 00:12:48,720 --> 00:12:50,600 Different types of comparative negligence. 299 00:12:51,160 --> 00:12:54,040 Multi party cases. Even product liability and 300 00:12:54,040 --> 00:12:57,480 intentional torts. But before we wrap up, I think 301 00:12:57,480 --> 00:12:59,280 we should go back to go Ford V Filler. 302 00:12:59,360 --> 00:13:02,480 Yeah, I want to see how this case would have played out under 303 00:13:02,480 --> 00:13:04,680 those different comparative negligence rules. 304 00:13:05,400 --> 00:13:07,440 Yeah, let's get hypothetical. Let's see how those different 305 00:13:07,440 --> 00:13:08,760 rules could have changed everything. 306 00:13:08,840 --> 00:13:10,400 All right, I'm game. Let's do it. 307 00:13:10,720 --> 00:13:14,560 All right, so back to go. Ford V Filler, our distracted 308 00:13:14,560 --> 00:13:17,120 driver and our red light running cyclist. 309 00:13:17,480 --> 00:13:20,320 Yeah, a classic comparative negligence situation. 310 00:13:20,320 --> 00:13:23,320 So let's pretend for a minute, what if this happened in a state 311 00:13:23,320 --> 00:13:27,440 with that 50% bar rule? OK, so remember 50% or more at 312 00:13:27,440 --> 00:13:30,320 fault plaintiff gets nothing right. 313 00:13:30,600 --> 00:13:33,760 In this case, cyclist was 30% at fault. 314 00:13:33,760 --> 00:13:36,120 So they're good, right? Still get some damages. 315 00:13:36,120 --> 00:13:37,840 Exactly. They can still recover, just 316 00:13:37,840 --> 00:13:41,040 reduced by that 30%. OK, but what if, just for fun, 317 00:13:41,440 --> 00:13:44,000 the court had said the cyclist was 40% at fault? 318 00:13:44,800 --> 00:13:46,200 Oh, that's getting close to the line. 319 00:13:46,280 --> 00:13:47,920 Yeah. Would that change things? 320 00:13:47,960 --> 00:13:50,240 Absolutely. That extra 10% would make all 321 00:13:50,240 --> 00:13:53,280 the difference, really. Yep, they'd be over that 50% 322 00:13:53,280 --> 00:13:55,000 threshold. No recovery at all. 323 00:13:55,000 --> 00:13:57,120 Nope, even though the driver was still more at fault. 324 00:13:57,280 --> 00:14:00,440 Wow, talk about a tough break. It shows how important those 325 00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:03,000 percentages are. Yeah, few points here or there 326 00:14:03,240 --> 00:14:04,760 can completely change the outcome. 327 00:14:04,840 --> 00:14:06,360 Exactly. You got to know the rules in 328 00:14:06,360 --> 00:14:08,600 your jurisdiction, OK? That's the 50% rule. 329 00:14:08,880 --> 00:14:10,880 What about the 51% rule? Any difference there? 330 00:14:11,520 --> 00:14:14,360 Not really same idea. So our cyclist is still in the 331 00:14:14,360 --> 00:14:17,600 clear. Yeah, 30% is way below that 51% 332 00:14:17,600 --> 00:14:20,400 cut off. OK, good for them, but let's 333 00:14:20,400 --> 00:14:22,920 spice things up a bit, OK? I like where this is going. 334 00:14:22,920 --> 00:14:26,360 What if there was another car involved, like someone 335 00:14:26,360 --> 00:14:28,360 tailgating the distracted driver? 336 00:14:28,680 --> 00:14:30,560 You know, making the whole situation worse. 337 00:14:31,600 --> 00:14:33,560 Now we're talking. So now we've got multiple 338 00:14:33,560 --> 00:14:36,840 defendants and a partially at fault plaintiff. 339 00:14:37,000 --> 00:14:38,840 This is where it gets really interesting. 340 00:14:39,000 --> 00:14:42,200 All right, walk me through it. How does comparative negligence 341 00:14:42,720 --> 00:14:45,560 work with all these players? Well, now the court has to 342 00:14:45,560 --> 00:14:47,080 figure out the fault of all three. 343 00:14:47,480 --> 00:14:50,920 Detracted driver, Tailgater and the cyclist. 344 00:14:51,400 --> 00:14:53,560 That's right, much more complicated puzzle. 345 00:14:53,560 --> 00:14:54,680 OK. Let's say they figured out 346 00:14:54,880 --> 00:14:58,320 distracted driver 50% at fault. Tailgater 20%. 347 00:14:58,520 --> 00:15:00,360 Cyclist still at 30%. OK. 348 00:15:00,400 --> 00:15:03,000 So now we got to think about joint and several liability. 349 00:15:03,000 --> 00:15:05,760 Oh right, that thing where the plaintiff can go after anyone 350 00:15:05,760 --> 00:15:07,400 for the full amount. Exactly. 351 00:15:07,560 --> 00:15:10,880 So even though the cyclist messed up, they could still sue 352 00:15:11,200 --> 00:15:14,040 either driver for everything. Yeah, that's how joint and 353 00:15:14,040 --> 00:15:16,720 several liability works. Wow, that's a lot of power for 354 00:15:16,720 --> 00:15:18,680 the plaintiff. It is, but remember the driver 355 00:15:18,680 --> 00:15:22,160 who pays up can then try to get money from the the other driver. 356 00:15:22,320 --> 00:15:24,760 Right to cover their share. Exactly this. 357 00:15:24,760 --> 00:15:27,600 Is complicated stuff. Yeah, the more parties involved, 358 00:15:27,600 --> 00:15:29,720 the more tangle the web. Right. 359 00:15:29,720 --> 00:15:33,640 So we've done history types of comparative negligence, multi 360 00:15:33,640 --> 00:15:36,320 party cases we've. Covered a lot of ground. 361 00:15:36,320 --> 00:15:39,040 Even product liability and intentional torts. 362 00:15:39,160 --> 00:15:40,800 It's a big topic. Now I want to bring it all 363 00:15:40,800 --> 00:15:43,000 together. OK, time to test our knowledge. 364 00:15:43,240 --> 00:15:44,000 I'm ready. Let's. 365 00:15:44,000 --> 00:15:46,400 Do a little pop quiz. Oh I love a good pop. 366 00:15:46,400 --> 00:15:48,160 Quiz Classic law school scenario. 367 00:15:48,160 --> 00:15:51,040 Hit me with. It we've got a pedestrian not 368 00:15:51,040 --> 00:15:53,040 paying attention, Jay walks into the street. 369 00:15:53,680 --> 00:15:57,040 OK, I'm seeing it. But there's a speeding car 370 00:15:57,040 --> 00:16:00,520 coming way over the line. Oh no, classic accident waiting 371 00:16:00,520 --> 00:16:00,840 to. Happen. 372 00:16:00,840 --> 00:16:03,400 Boom, collision. Who's at fault? 373 00:16:04,120 --> 00:16:06,960 Well, that depends on what what jurisdiction we're in. 374 00:16:06,960 --> 00:16:09,040 OK, so let's play it out. Different scenarios, different 375 00:16:09,040 --> 00:16:10,240 rules. All right, let's break it down. 376 00:16:10,240 --> 00:16:12,720 OK, so back to our Jay Walker and our speeder. 377 00:16:12,720 --> 00:16:14,120 Yeah. Who's going to pay for those 378 00:16:14,120 --> 00:16:14,920 medical bills? Let's. 379 00:16:15,000 --> 00:16:17,040 Say we're in a pure comparative negligence state. 380 00:16:17,040 --> 00:16:19,680 What happens? OK, so pure comparative 381 00:16:19,680 --> 00:16:22,160 negligence. Remember, plaintiff can recover 382 00:16:22,160 --> 00:16:23,520 no matter how much they're at fault. 383 00:16:23,680 --> 00:16:25,400 Right, even if they were mostly to blame. 384 00:16:25,440 --> 00:16:27,400 Exactly. So the court's going to look at 385 00:16:27,400 --> 00:16:29,120 everything, figure out the percentages. 386 00:16:29,320 --> 00:16:31,960 Jaywalking versus speeding? Tough one, yeah. 387 00:16:32,400 --> 00:16:36,400 Let's say they decide jaywalker was 60% at fault, driver 40%. 388 00:16:36,600 --> 00:16:39,160 OK, the. Pedestrian they can still 389 00:16:39,160 --> 00:16:42,000 recover, but only 40% of their damages so even. 390 00:16:42,000 --> 00:16:44,920 Though they were jaywalking, they still get something. 391 00:16:44,920 --> 00:16:47,480 That's the idea of pure comparative negligence. 392 00:16:47,480 --> 00:16:49,720 It's all about proportion. OK, that makes sense. 393 00:16:50,040 --> 00:16:52,520 Now, what if we're in a state with a 50% bar rule? 394 00:16:52,600 --> 00:16:53,920 OK, things are going to change a bit. 395 00:16:54,000 --> 00:16:56,800 How so? Remember 50% or more at fault 396 00:16:57,000 --> 00:16:58,800 the plaintiffs out of luck. Right. 397 00:16:58,800 --> 00:17:01,600 No recovery. So if our jaywalker is 60% at 398 00:17:01,600 --> 00:17:04,079 fault, they get nothing. Even though the driver was 399 00:17:04,079 --> 00:17:05,960 speeding. Doesn't matter, they crossed 400 00:17:05,960 --> 00:17:08,880 that 50% line. Wow, so the rule makes a big 401 00:17:08,880 --> 00:17:10,440 difference. Huge difference. 402 00:17:10,440 --> 00:17:12,200 OK. What about the 51% rule? 403 00:17:12,200 --> 00:17:14,760 Same outcome, 60% is still over the limit. 404 00:17:14,839 --> 00:17:17,560 So our Jay Walker is stuck with the medical bills either way. 405 00:17:17,560 --> 00:17:20,560 Yep, tough lesson learned. This comparative negligence 406 00:17:20,560 --> 00:17:23,079 stuff, it's really all about those percentages, huh? 407 00:17:23,119 --> 00:17:24,599 It all comes down to those numbers. 408 00:17:24,800 --> 00:17:26,560 All right, one last curveball. Hit me. 409 00:17:26,720 --> 00:17:30,160 What if our speeding driver was? I don't know, running from the 410 00:17:30,160 --> 00:17:32,480 cops. Now we're getting into 411 00:17:32,520 --> 00:17:34,600 intentional tort territory. Right. 412 00:17:34,600 --> 00:17:36,920 Fleeing the police. That's not just negligence 413 00:17:36,920 --> 00:17:37,800 anymore. Exactly. 414 00:17:37,800 --> 00:17:40,800 There's intent there. So how does comparative 415 00:17:40,800 --> 00:17:43,360 negligence play into that? That's where the debate gets 416 00:17:43,400 --> 00:17:45,480 really heated. OK, I'm all ears. 417 00:17:45,480 --> 00:17:49,440 Some courts would say forget it, Comparative negligence is out 418 00:17:49,440 --> 00:17:50,520 the window. Why? 419 00:17:50,560 --> 00:17:52,600 Because it's intentional. Yeah, they'd say. 420 00:17:52,600 --> 00:17:56,000 You can't compare intentional wrongdoing with negligence. 421 00:17:56,000 --> 00:17:57,960 So the jaywalkers fault doesn't matter. 422 00:17:58,200 --> 00:18:00,040 Nope. The focus is on holding the 423 00:18:00,040 --> 00:18:02,440 driver accountable for that intentional act. 424 00:18:02,440 --> 00:18:04,320 OK, what's the other side of the argument? 425 00:18:04,520 --> 00:18:08,000 Well, some courts might say hold on, maybe we can still consider 426 00:18:08,000 --> 00:18:10,200 the jaywalkers actions. Really. 427 00:18:10,400 --> 00:18:13,440 Even in this situation. They might argue that the 428 00:18:13,440 --> 00:18:16,240 jaywalkers negligence contributed to the harm. 429 00:18:16,680 --> 00:18:18,440 So maybe they reduced the damages a bit. 430 00:18:18,680 --> 00:18:22,040 It's possible, but it really depends on the specific facts 431 00:18:22,040 --> 00:18:25,600 and the courts interpretation. Man, this is complicated. 432 00:18:25,720 --> 00:18:27,800 It is, and that's why it's so fascinating. 433 00:18:27,800 --> 00:18:30,320 I think we've given our listeners a lot to think about 434 00:18:30,320 --> 00:18:32,360 today. We've covered a lot of ground. 435 00:18:32,360 --> 00:18:35,360 We went from Butterfield V Forester all the way to 436 00:18:35,360 --> 00:18:39,040 jaywalkers and fleeing drivers. It's a journey through the world 437 00:18:39,040 --> 00:18:41,800 of comparative negligence. And the biggest take away, I 438 00:18:41,800 --> 00:18:43,280 think. Shared responsibility. 439 00:18:43,320 --> 00:18:46,160 Exactly. Accidents are rarely just one 440 00:18:46,160 --> 00:18:48,640 person's fault. It's about figuring out 441 00:18:48,640 --> 00:18:51,240 everyone's role and making sure the outcome is fair. 442 00:18:52,240 --> 00:18:54,440 Alright, legal eagles, that's a wrap for today. 443 00:18:54,480 --> 00:18:56,320 Hope you enjoyed the Deep. Dive. 444 00:18:56,320 --> 00:18:59,200 Don't forget to study up on those comparative negligence 445 00:18:59,200 --> 00:19:00,400 rules. They might just save you on that 446 00:19:00,400 --> 00:19:03,360 torts exam. Until next time, stay sharp.