Unit 6
Unit 6 Assignment: Secondary Sources (Slip & Fall) Stephanie Royer PA 201-02 Introduction to Legal Research Professor Cynthia Middleton June 25, 2013
1.)
Nevada follows a system using the modified comparative negligence – 51% rule.
A tort rule for allocating damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage (for example, a jury might find that the plaintiff was 30% at fault and the defendant was 70% at fault). Then each pays their share of the other's damages (in the above example, the plaintiff pays 30% of defendant's damages, and defendant pays 70% of plaintiff's damages).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence
Comparative Negligence
A rule of law applied in negligence cases in which responsibility and damages are based on the proportional fault of every party directly involved.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/comparative-negligence-term.html
2.)
16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 130 (2013)
Under the traditional choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti (The law of the place where a wrong was committed.), what conduct constitutes contributory negligence is a question of substantive law which is governed by the law of the state where the injury occurred. Thus, whether contributory negligence of the plaintiff precludes recovery in whole or in part in a negligence action is to be settled by the law of the place of the wrong. A comparative negligence statute likewise is part of the substantive law of the state, and therefore, the effect of the plaintiff's comparative negligence also will be determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the wrong occurred.
3).
John S. Herbrand, J.D., Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206 (Originally published in 1978).
According to the widely
1.)
Nevada follows a system using the modified comparative negligence – 51% rule.
A tort rule for allocating damages when both parties are at least somewhat at fault. In a situation where both the plaintiff and the defendant were negligent, the jury allocates fault, usually as a percentage (for example, a jury might find that the plaintiff was 30% at fault and the defendant was 70% at fault). Then each pays their share of the other's damages (in the above example, the plaintiff pays 30% of defendant's damages, and defendant pays 70% of plaintiff's damages).
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/comparative_negligence
Comparative Negligence
A rule of law applied in negligence cases in which responsibility and damages are based on the proportional fault of every party directly involved.
http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/comparative-negligence-term.html
2.)
16 Am. Jur. 2d Conflict of Laws § 130 (2013)
Under the traditional choice-of-law rule of lex loci delicti (The law of the place where a wrong was committed.), what conduct constitutes contributory negligence is a question of substantive law which is governed by the law of the state where the injury occurred. Thus, whether contributory negligence of the plaintiff precludes recovery in whole or in part in a negligence action is to be settled by the law of the place of the wrong. A comparative negligence statute likewise is part of the substantive law of the state, and therefore, the effect of the plaintiff's comparative negligence also will be determined by the law of the jurisdiction in which the wrong occurred.
3).
John S. Herbrand, J.D., Choice of law as to application of comparative negligence doctrine, 86 A.L.R.3d 1206 (Originally published in 1978).
According to the widely