John was driving his car in a careless way, failing to drive as a ...

[audie]

John was driving his car in a careless way, failing to drive as a reasonably prudent person would under the driving conditions. Ramona was crossing the street in a careless way, failing to cross as a reasonably prudent person would. John struck and injured Ramona with the car John was driving. At trial, it was determined that John was 80 percent at fault and that Ramona was 20 percent at fault. The injuries sustained amounted to 100,000. Explain how much, if any, recovery Ramona would receive in a state that applies the contributory negligence rule. Do the same thing for a state that applies the comparative negligence rule.

Question 2

A local newspaper devotes its New Year's Day issue to people who have performed heroically during the past year. One of the people included in the article was Janet, a local actress. Eight months earlier, a fire started in the theater while she was in the middle of a performance. Rather than running out, she stayed to help frightened members of the audience get out of the theater. The New Year's article stated that Janet had been unable to find work as an actress because of burns to her hands and feet and that, as a result, she owes a great deal of money. Janet sued the newspaper for invasion of privacy. Based on what you have learned in this chapter, how should the case be decided?

[poopface]

Answer to Question 1

In a contributory negligence jurisdiction, Ramona would recover nothing, since the doctrine of contributory negligence holds that in order for a plaintiff to recover, the plaintiff must be entirely free from any negligence that contributed to the injury. Under comparative negligence, Ramona would recover 80 percent of 100,000, or 80,000; although Ramona's negligence would reduce the amount of her recovery, it would not preclude her recovery. In other words, whatever amount of the injury is held to be caused by Ramona will be deducted from the total amount of the damage award.

Answer to Question 2

Janet might be able to recover. The right of privacy protects against giving unnecessary publicity to personal and private matters of the plaintiff's life, including financial status. However, there is no invasion of privacy when there is a legitimate business interest in making the information known. In this case, it appears that the private information included in the article concerning Janet's financial status and inability to continue in her profession is not necessary to the article.

[audie]

Excellent

[ashely1112]

Gracias!