Week 5 - Discussion Board Questions
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Seton Hall University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
6008
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by AdmiralWillpowerSeahorse20
Jada Porter
Torts: Liability for Civil Wrongs 12/7/2023
Week 5: Discussion Board Questions
1.
Your state legislature is considering adopting a statute that would declare all releases of negligence liability void and unenforceable. How would this statute change existing law? Would you support this change? Why or why not?
A statute that declares all releases of negligence liability void and unenforceable would essentially remove legal protection from companies. Without the enforcement of liability waivers, companies would be left vulnerable to being named in more negligence liability lawsuits. Voiding all liability waivers would significantly increase company risks. This exposure would lead to inflated insurance costs for companies to pay as well. This ultimately makes it difficult for people to financially sustain their businesses. I would not support the adoption of this statute. If waivers became unenforceable in court, plaintiffs would have the freedom to file lawsuits even if their negligence liability claims are not necessarily legitimate. If people know that a waiver they signed is no longer enforceable,
they may be encouraged to take risks to cause their own injuries on purpose. People could do this with the deliberate intention of suing to receive compensation afterward. I believe this statute would quickly overwhelm the courts with many negligence liability lawsuits that could have been avoided. The legal system would be strained by having to allocate more time and resources to address these negligence liability lawsuits that may not be justified. This statute does not provide a proper balance between consumer protection and putting a burden on companies and the legal system. I believe the adoption of this statute should be approached more cautiously considering all of these potential issues. The state legislature should find a fair way to protect people from negligence without creating unnecessary hardship on businesses and the courts. 2.
A few states still apply the traditional rule of contributory negligence, under which any amount of negligence by the plaintiff is an absolute bar to recovery. Are there any advantages to that approach, as compared to the comparative negligence approach by the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions? On balance, which approach do you prefer and why?
The advantage of the traditional contributory negligence approach solely rests with the defendants who are being sued. If the plaintiff is found negligent in any way, their entire lawsuit for compensation is dismissed by the court. Using the traditional contributory negligence approach, the defendants are able to avoid taking financial responsibility for any damages if they can prove how the plaintiff played a part in their own injuries. The traditional contributory negligence approach does not seem to benefit the plaintiffs in any way. With this approach, the plaintiff’s negligence claims are entirely disregarded by the courts which I think is unfair. The traditional contributory negligence approach has been discarded by the overwhelming majority of jurisdictions because it only favors the defendants. I prefer the courts to utilize the comparative negligence approach. This approach allows both the plaintiff and the defendant to be held accountable in court. If
the plaintiff is found negligent, their recovery award is reduced by the court which is very fair to the defendant. The comparative negligence approach ensures that the plaintiffs will share some of the blame and does not leave the defendants fully responsible for damages. This approach at least allows the plaintiff to bring their negligence liability claims forward instead of automatically being dismissed. This approach acknowledges that negligence liability is not always a one sided problem and encourages all parties to take responsibility for their actions. Overall, the comparative negligence approach offers more balance to the legal system compared to the contributory negligence approach.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help