California First-Year Law Students' Exam (Baby Bar) — MCTortsEasy
A construction worker, operating a jackhammer, inadvertently caused a large chunk of concrete to fly into a nearby public park. The concrete struck a jogger, causing a severe leg injury. The jogger sued the construction company. In a jurisdiction that follows pure comparative negligence, if the jury finds the jogger 10% at fault for not paying attention and the construction company 90% at fault, and the total damages are $100,000, how much will the jogger recover?
- A$0
- B$10,000
- C$90,000
- D$100,000
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: C. $90,000
In a pure comparative negligence jurisdiction, the 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. Here, the jogger is 10% at fault, so their $100,000 damages will be reduced by 10% ($10,000), resulting in a recovery of $90,000. Calculation: $100,000 - (10% * $100,000) = $90,000.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This would be the result in a contributory negligence jurisdiction where any fault bars recovery.
- B. This would be the amount the jogger was at fault, not the amount recovered.
- D. This would be the recovery if the jogger was found zero percent at fault.
Pure Comparative Negligence
A defense to negligence where the plaintiff's recovery is reduced by the percentage of their own fault, regardless of how great that fault is.
- Plaintiff can recover even if 99% at fault.
- Damages are directly proportional to the defendant's fault.
- Different from 'modified comparative negligence' where recovery is barred if plaintiff's fault exceeds a certain threshold (e.g., 50%).
Memory trick: Pure Comparative: Your slice of fault just reduces your pie, never takes it all.