Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons™

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Torts

Journal

1980

Comparative negligence

Articles 1 - 7 of 7

Full-Text Articles in Law

Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants, Jane G. Parks May 1980

Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants, Jane G. Parks

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development argues that no single federal common law rule of contribution exists and that federal securities law decisions provide the best analogy from which to imply a right of contribution under the antitrust laws. Thus, the Recent Development proposes that the Supreme Court should fashion a rule permitting contribution among antitrust defendants.

Go to article

The Plaintiff's View Of Comparative Negligence, E. Joseph Buffa Jr. Apr 1980

The Plaintiff's View Of Comparative Negligence, E. Joseph Buffa Jr.

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Negotiation And Settlement: An Insurer's View Of Comparative Negligence, John L. Hunt Apr 1980

Negotiation And Settlement: An Insurer's View Of Comparative Negligence, John L. Hunt

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: A Defense Overview, Alvin L. Emch Apr 1980

Comparative Negligence In West Virginia: A Defense Overview, Alvin L. Emch

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Appendix--Sample Special Interrogatory Forms Apr 1980

Appendix--Sample Special Interrogatory Forms

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

Alas And Alack, Modified Comparative Negligence Comes To West Virginia, Thomas C. Cady Apr 1980

Alas And Alack, Modified Comparative Negligence Comes To West Virginia, Thomas C. Cady

West Virginia Law Review

No abstract provided.

Go to article

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach To Seat Belt Issues, Stephen J. Werber Jan 1980

A Multi-Disciplinary Approach To Seat Belt Issues, Stephen J. Werber

Cleveland State Law Review

It is imperative that a multi-disciplinary approach to the seat belt defense be attempted. With a growing number of exceptions, courts have ruled that a defendant may not seek to lessen or avoid liability by showing that the plaintiff failed to use a restraint system. In this way the seat belt defense has frequently been rendered unavailable. Too often, the judiciary has determined as a matter of law that a reasonable person need not use a life-saving mechanism, denying juries an opportunity to reach a different conclusion. Thus, paradoxically, while courts have expanded the scope of injury liability by asserting …

Go to article