Bar Exam — MBE (Multistate Bar Exam)TortsMedium
A motorist was driving through a dense fog when he suddenly encountered a stalled vehicle ahead. Despite driving cautiously for the conditions, he was unable to stop in time and collided with the stalled vehicle, causing damage. The driver of the stalled vehicle had negligently failed to put on hazard lights or place warning triangles. In a jurisdiction that applies pure comparative negligence, how would the damages likely be awarded?
- AEach party would recover damages from the other, reduced by their own percentage of fault.
- BThe motorist would recover only if his fault was less than the stalled vehicle's fault.
- CThe motorist would recover 100% of his damages, as the stalled vehicle's negligence was greater.
- DThe motorist would recover nothing, as he contributed to the accident.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: A. Each party would recover damages from the other, reduced by their own percentage of fault.
In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, a plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault, but they are not barred from recovery even if their fault is greater than the defendant's. Both parties can recover from the other, with damages adjusted proportionally.
Why the other options are wrong
- B. This describes modified comparative negligence (often 50% or 51% bar rule), not pure comparative negligence.
- C. This is incorrect; the motorist's own fault, however small, would reduce his recovery.
- D. This describes contributory negligence, not pure comparative negligence.
Pure Comparative Negligence
A tort rule where a plaintiff's damages are reduced by the percentage of their own fault, but they can still recover even if their fault is greater than the defendant's.
- Plaintiff's recovery is reduced proportionally.
- Plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault.
- Contrast with modified comparative negligence (50% or 51% bar).
Memory trick: Purely Proportional, No Bar to Recovery.