The term “contributory negligence” is basically outdated by the principles of comparative negligence; however, it still remains an important factor in considering a defense of a negligence action. The contributory negligence defense is invoked when a plaintiff contributes to his/her injury or damage to such an extent that they, the plaintiff, breached an expected standard of conduct. In most states (see chart above), the doctrine of contributory negligence has been replaced by comparative negligence rules.
Example: A plaintiff is injured in an off-road vehicle accident on a mountain trail. She alleges that the managing agency allowed the trail to be used after they had knowledge that the trail was severely eroded. An investigation of the incident found that the plaintiff had in fact left the trail as a result of traveling at a excessive speed. The plaintiff contributed so significantly to her accident; that a court action could not be brought against the agency.
Although somewhat outdated, there is an “act of God” defense that has been placed under this category for simplicity purposes. Some jurisdictions consider “Acts of God” to be an extension of the principles of contributory negligence. These are usually referred to as conditions caused by the natural elements.
Example: A plaintiff was sailing on an inland lake when a sudden wind tipped the rented boat and caused injury to the plaintiff and damage to the boat. The courts would not allow legal action to be pursued because the wind was a natural element. The lake managing agency and the boat rental company are not required to provide warning for natural elements they would be unable to predict, i.e., earthquakes, sudden weather changes, or lightning, etc.
- 1 decade agoBest Answer
期限 “捐助疏忽” 是基本上過時的由比較疏忽的原則; 但是, 這仍然保留一個重要因素在考慮疏忽行動的防禦。捐助疏忽防禦被祈求當原告對他/她的傷害或損傷貢獻在某種程度上他們, 原告, 破壞了品行一個期望的標準。在多數狀態(參見圖上面), 捐助疏忽教條由比較疏忽規則替換了。
例子: 原告被傷害在一次越野的車事故在山足跡。她斷言, 處理的代辦處允許足跡被使用在他們有知識之後足跡嚴厲地被腐蝕了。事件的調查發現原告實際上留下足跡由於旅行以過份速度。原告對她的事故那麼極大貢獻了; 法庭訴訟不能被帶來反對代辦處。
雖然有些過時, 有 “不可抗力” 被安置了在這個類別之下為樸素目的防禦。一些司法認為 “不可抗力” 捐助疏忽的原則的引伸。這些通常指情況由自然元素造成。
例子: 原告航行在一個內地湖當突然的風打翻了租用的小船和造成了對小船的傷害對原告和損傷。法院不會允許訴訟被追求因為風是一個自然元素。他們無法預言的湖處理的代辦處和小船出租公司不必需為自然元素提供警告, 即, 地震、突然的天氣變動、或閃電, 等