John was driving his car in a careless way, failing to drive as a reasonably prudent person would under the driving conditions. Ramona was crossing the street in a careless way, failing to cross as a reasonably prudent person would. John struck and injured Ramona with the car John was driving. At trial, it was determined that John was 80 percent at fault and that Ramona was 20 percent at fault. The injuries sustained amounted to $100,000. Explain how much, if any, recovery Ramona would receive in a state that applies the contributory negligence rule. Do the same thing for a state that applies the comparative negligence rule

1. If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained.

2. If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John which will be $80,000

Explanation:

In contributory negligence, the defense completely bars plaintiffs from any recovery if they contribute to their own injury through their own negligence.

If this law of contributory negligence applies to the state, then Ramona will receive no compensation for the damages she sustained.

In comparative negligence, the plaintiff's damages is award by the percentage of fault that the fact-finder assigns to the plaintiff for his or her own injury i.e the plaintiff's damage compensation is reduced by percentage of his/her percentage of fault.

If this law of comparative negligence applies to this state, then Ramona will get 100% - 20% = 80% of the damages incurred in the accident, from John

this is 80% of $100,00 which is equal to $80,000

the specific actions take by the fed. what the fed was attempting to do by taking these actions. the result of the actions taken by the fed