{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
2/20/2015 7:05:25 AM
1
The example is meant to illustrate that being "dumb" doesn't excuse being victimized...
How about this, then, a person is jaywalking across the street and as he does so a drunk driver hits him and seriously injures him. Only the minority of jurisdictions, those employing contributory negligence, would bar recovery for his damages.
Sure, the person jaywalking is "at fault," but that doesn't excuse the fact the diver was drunk. Ergo, the majority approach (adopted by a vast majority of states) is comparative negligence. Say the driver is found to be 90% at fault and the pedestrian is 10%. If the pedestrian's total damages are $100,000, he can still recover $90,000 from the driver. (Unless it's a "modified" jurisdiction, and pedestrian was 50% or more at fault).
English
-
Edited by eVoLvE: 2/20/2015 7:20:13 AMI never said kirmit should be absolved for his part. I'm just pointing out that you made a poor analogy. Also, in your example of jaywalking and being hit by a drunk driver, you proved the point I was making in that both parties are punished for being in the wrong. He still owns a portion of the blame, in your example 10%. In the email scam, the person being scammed isn't at fault because they didn't commit a crime. Two different scenarios. Your jaywalking example was an excellent analogy for the situation.
