Quote:
Originally Posted by nivbot
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
You could use it there were some sort of monetary issue at stake but since there isn't then you can't and I'd wager any rational jury you find zero fault, but you can say what you want.
|
Since you're having a failure of imagination and/or metaphors here, let me simplify for you, lawyer buddy.
Quote:
contributory negligence
n. a doctrine of common law that if a person was injured in part due to his/her own negligence (his/her negligence "contributed" to the accident), the injured party would not be entitled to collect any damages (money) from another party who supposedly caused the accident. Under this rule, a badly injured person who was only slightly negligent could not win in court against a very negligent defendant...
|
In other words, Namyjamo trained you. This was wrong. However, you stood there like an idiot instead of running or gating. This was also wrong. By failing to take appropriate action, you were negligent in contributing to the accident.
Quote:
|
... If Joe Tosspot was driving drunk and speeding, and Angela Comfort was going 25 m.p.h. but six inches over the center-line, most likely Angela would be precluded from any recovery (receiving any money for injuries or damages) from a car crash... in the past few decades, most states have adopted a comparative negligence test in which the relative percentages of negligence by each person are used to determine damage recovery (how much money would be paid to the injured person).
|
Namyjamo did everything he could to help you avoid his "accident", despite being the initial cause thereof. And you did everything you could to run headlong into it and die anyway.
Since you're fighting for internet points instead of money. I hereby award you 0 internet points of a possible 100.
I hope my very highly educated legal opinion has helped you to understand why you are terrible.