If the defendant (‘D’) in a negligent case successfully proves the defence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff (‘P’), which is correct.

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Question restatement: If the defendant (D) in a negligent case successfully proves contributory negligence by the plaintiff (P), which option is correct?

Option a: 'None of the other options is correct' This would be false if at least one of the remaining options accurately describes the typical consequence of contributory negligence. Since there is a standard outcome associated with contributory fault, this blanket negation is not correct.

Option b: 'D is completely relieved from liability for P’s losses.' This describes a scenario where P’s own negligence completely bars D’s liability. In many jurisdictions with pure contributory negligence, D would be absolved. However, most modern frameworks use apportionment or comparative fault rather than full relief, so this statement is not universally correct and is likely inaccurate in many settings.

Option c: 'D wins their legal costs, but they are still fully liable for P’s losses.' This is internally inconsistent: if D is found not liable for P’s losses due to contributory negligence, D would not be fully liable for those losses. The clause about still being fully liable contradicts the premise of a contributory-negligence defense reducing or eliminating D’s liability.

Option d: 'The liability is apportioned between P and D.' This describes the common outcome in many jurisdictions adopting comparative fault or partial contributory negligence: damages are divided in proportion to each party’s degree of fault. It aligns with the typical effect of proving contributory negligence when the law moves away from all-or-nothing relief toward fault-based apportionment.

Why the correct idea fits: When contributory negligence is established, courts often allocate fault between the two parties, reducing or sharing liability rather than enforcing a total exemption or total plaintiff recovery. The exact split depends on the respective fault percentages, but the core idea is apportionment of liability.

Why the other options fail: Option a fails because there exists at least one option describing apportionment. Option b can be true in some historical pure-contributory systems but is not universally correct and is therefore not reliably correct. Option c contradicts the premise of liability reduction due to contributory fault and misstates how costs relate to damages in a contributory context.

If the defendant (‘D’) in a negligent case successfully proves the defence of contributory negligence by the plaintiff (‘P’), which is correct.单项选择题

类似问题

Which of the following statements is correct about contributory negligence?

What pioneering technique is being used by Musk and Bezos to reduce the cost of space travel?

What is the different approach that Allen and Branson are taking, compared with other organisations?

In the article, what is the billionaires’ attitude toward space travel?

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单