by Guest » Tue Aug 28, 2007 05:36 am
My friends..I've recently come to know about a comparative negligence law (regarding vehicles) operating within our state. Can anyone tell me something about pure comparative negligence !
How do I come to know the extent to which I was faulty! Thanks, Crossbreed007
How do I come to know the extent to which I was faulty! Thanks, Crossbreed007
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 09:33 am Post Subject: important..
My friend!
Let me explain Pure comparative negligence very clearly over here...whenever an accident takes place it becomes a closer n deeper at determining which party is at fault. This happens more complex, since we can easily understand that there might be situations where in both the parties would happily put the blame on each other.
This is a scenario where in it becomes increasingly important to determine the extent to which each party is faulty. Once the percentage to which each party is at-fault can be ascertained then only amount of claim that is to be fed by the insurer can be arrived at. All the best, fatman
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 09:58 am Post Subject: Pure Comparative negligence
Guys! I truly agree...but at the same time we should remember how complex it is to figure out the actual fault. This confusion gives birth to the more complex procedure of negotiation over the fault by the insurer and the claimant party.
As we can see from a careful study of such cases, it becomes more evident that a situation might arise which might signify a Pure Comparative negligence.
This is a situation where in the claimant would be entitled to get any amount which may be derived once the worth of damages caused by him may get deducted from the worth of his own damages. The following example would certainly help illustrate it:
Suppose the damage was worth $20,000 & the claimant had been found to be 10% faulty, then the amount he would receive as a compensation would be $(20000-2000)= $18000.
See if it helps! Evan T. Smith
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 10:25 am Post Subject: Check out the comparative one!
Hi yeah, its true that for the pure negligence the claimant would be entitled to receive residue amount after allocating his own fault. But a rather generalized form comparative negligence (ie. the comparative negligence) also comes into the picture which permits the claimant to achieve an amount as compensation from the insurer of the other party.
This might happen only when the claimant can prove that he was certainly less than 50% at-fault compared to the other party. Take care, Trridzone77
Posted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 04:07 pm Post Subject:
But a rather generalized form comparative negligence (ie. the comparative negligence) also comes into the picture which permits the claimant to achieve an amount as compensation from the insurer of the other party.
Which would be modified comparative negligence.This might happen only when the claimant can prove that he was certainly less than 50% at-fault compared to the other party
OP, it's not possible to explain comp neg to any degree with your state as you mentioned... as you don't mention which state.
You may want to know that 3 types of negligent laws usually apply, pure comparative negligence (the amount you are entitled to collect is reduced by the amount of your negligence), modified comparative negligence (same as pure but if your negligence is above a certain threshold, you are bared from recovery) and contributory negligence (if you have any negligence, you are bared from recovery). Contrib neg is, I think, the nastiest one as even if your just 1% at fault you don't have a claim. It's not hard to find 1%.
Who ever is going to financially settle the claim is the person who determines fault. After all, the only need in determining fault is to settle the loss. There are no charts are formulas applied. 99.9% of the time it's the adjuster at the person's insurance company that makes that determination. If the other party does not like the adjusters decision, then this is why your policy also provides unlimited funds for a defense. The person's adjuster will want to speak to the people involved, speak to witnesses, review the police report, review the damages to the vehicle, etc. All to determine what exactly happen in the accident. Based on this information, they make a negligence determination. They may also look at how the local population views certain things (i.e. if the accident happen in a retirement community, they may consider how elderly people would view the situation... as the claim may end up going before a local jury).
Posted: Tue Sep 11, 2007 11:46 am Post Subject:
There is another twist, modified comparative 50/50 or modified 49/50, or the 51% law yikes !! Clear as mud !!!
Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2007 07:35 pm Post Subject:
50/50 means that if you are 50% or less at fault, you can recover. 51/49 means that if you are 51% or less at fault you can recover. Pure means that even if you are majority at fault, if the other party is negligent at all, you may be able to recover a small % of your loss from their insurance company.
Each state has their own comp/neg law and some states vary and have their own rules regarding this but generally they are either 50/50, 51/49, or Pure. That's all I can say about Pure Comparative negligence :)
Posted: Mon Apr 20, 2009 02:25 pm Post Subject:
dont forget that DC MD VA AL, and others are Contrib states. This means that if you contributed at all to the accident whether it be 1% - 100% you can not recover.
Posted: Wed May 11, 2011 12:40 pm Post Subject: wjgdPCdBIHGE
Negligencelaws.. Keen :)
Posted: Fri Jun 03, 2011 08:16 am Post Subject: BXQOvEPDbxiwglzxwYm
Negligencelaws.. Bang-up :)
Posted: Sat Aug 13, 2011 03:27 pm Post Subject: fifteen olive plans
-acyclovir-no-prescription-required-overnight]buy acyclovir online
Add your comment