The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused entirely by the defendant. The plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt. He was thrown from his jeep and sustained a compression type injury to the lower back when he landed on the pavement. The defendant offered evidence that had the plaintiff been wearing his seat belt, e would not have been thrown from the jeep. If the doctrine of comparative fault if followed, will his fact reduce the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? Why?

Question

Business

Trace Walter

22 November, 21:14

The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused entirely by the defendant. The plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt. He was thrown from his jeep and sustained a compression type injury to the lower back when he landed on the pavement. The defendant offered evidence that had the plaintiff been wearing his seat belt, e would not have been thrown from the jeep. If the doctrine of comparative fault if followed, will his fact reduce the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? Why?

+4

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Kassidy Leblanc · Answer 1

Yes, if the doctrine of comparative fault followed then it will reduce the compensation for the actual damage. The reason is that both parties were negligent in exercising the level of care and hence the plaintiff who suffered injury must be compensated for lower damage not for actual damage.

Explanation:

The reason is that if the plaintiff was wearing the seat belt then he would had suffered lower damages than the actual one so the doctrine of comparative fault says that he must be compensated for the lower damage as the negligence of the defendant resulted in injury from car accident but it was also due to the negligence of plaintiff as well.