The plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident caused entirely by the defendant. The plaintiff was not wearing his seat belt. He was thrown from his jeep and sustained a compression type injury to the lower back when he landed on the pavement. The defendant offered evidence that had the plaintiff been wearing his seat belt, e would not have been thrown from the jeep. If the doctrine of comparative fault if followed, will his fact reduce the damages to which the plaintiff is entitled? Why?

Yes, if the doctrine of comparative fault followed then it will reduce the compensation for the actual damage. The reason is that both parties were negligent in exercising the level of care and hence the plaintiff who suffered injury must be compensated for lower damage not for actual damage.

Explanation:

The reason is that if the plaintiff was wearing the seat belt then he would had suffered lower damages than the actual one so the doctrine of comparative fault says that he must be compensated for the lower damage as the negligence of the defendant resulted in injury from car accident but it was also due to the negligence of plaintiff as well.

hi,

henry is an economist and wants to understand the relationship between inflation and consumer spending habits. for his research, he needs the consumer price index for 2014 and the inflation rate. based on the prices of goods given, what will he find to be the cpi and inflation rate for 2014? assume that a consumer’s basket for three consecutive years consists of the following:

you dont privide answer choices.

answer - 15% of a inflatation rate is 15% less in cpi

borrow money from the government then pay the government back 5k