Under Revised Code § 2315.19, the contributory negligence of the plaintiff is no longer an absolute bar to recovery. Only where a plaintiff\u27s fault is greater than that of all defendants combined is that plaintiff precluded entirely from recovery. Thus under the new Ohio statute, the possibility of recovery for the negligent plaintiff is significantly enhanced while at the same time liability exposure of the defendant is proportionately enlarged. It is therefore of critical importance to determine whether such an alteration in the relative rights of litigants is constitutional
In American Motorcycle v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court failed to extend the pure s...
Minnesota courts have interpreted the Minnesota Comparative Fault statute as requiring comparison of...
Bowling v. Heil Co., 31 Ohio St. 3d 277, 511 N.E.2d 373 (1987); Onderko v. Richmond Mfg. Co., 31 Ohi...
In the case of Wilfong v. Batdorf the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the issue of the retroactive app...
On March 4, 1980, the Ohio General Assembly finally concurred on an amended form of Senate Bill 165,...
The common law view of contributory negligence theoretically still obtains in most jurisdictions. Th...
Systems of comparative negligence, whereby the negligence of a plaintiff serves to reduce rather tha...
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held per curiam that Pennsylvania\u27s comparative negligence...
I. Introduction II. The Comparative Negligence Statute … A. Nebraska’s Uncertain Position … B. Criti...
This note will discuss briefly the policy considerations underlying a choice between comparative neg...
Recent decisional law by the Court of Appeals has placed new limits on the applicability of article ...
In tort cases, comparative negligence now is the dominant method for determining damages. Under that...
This Note contends that if Ohio insists on retaining some form of joint and several liability, the r...
In June 1977 the Ohio Supreme Court decided Temple v. Wean United, Inc., and adopted the doctrine of...
Before examining the standards set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in Paugh v. Hanks, a brief overvi...
In American Motorcycle v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court failed to extend the pure s...
Minnesota courts have interpreted the Minnesota Comparative Fault statute as requiring comparison of...
Bowling v. Heil Co., 31 Ohio St. 3d 277, 511 N.E.2d 373 (1987); Onderko v. Richmond Mfg. Co., 31 Ohi...
In the case of Wilfong v. Batdorf the Ohio Supreme Court reexamined the issue of the retroactive app...
On March 4, 1980, the Ohio General Assembly finally concurred on an amended form of Senate Bill 165,...
The common law view of contributory negligence theoretically still obtains in most jurisdictions. Th...
Systems of comparative negligence, whereby the negligence of a plaintiff serves to reduce rather tha...
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has held per curiam that Pennsylvania\u27s comparative negligence...
I. Introduction II. The Comparative Negligence Statute … A. Nebraska’s Uncertain Position … B. Criti...
This note will discuss briefly the policy considerations underlying a choice between comparative neg...
Recent decisional law by the Court of Appeals has placed new limits on the applicability of article ...
In tort cases, comparative negligence now is the dominant method for determining damages. Under that...
This Note contends that if Ohio insists on retaining some form of joint and several liability, the r...
In June 1977 the Ohio Supreme Court decided Temple v. Wean United, Inc., and adopted the doctrine of...
Before examining the standards set forth by the Ohio Supreme Court in Paugh v. Hanks, a brief overvi...
In American Motorcycle v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court failed to extend the pure s...
Minnesota courts have interpreted the Minnesota Comparative Fault statute as requiring comparison of...
Bowling v. Heil Co., 31 Ohio St. 3d 277, 511 N.E.2d 373 (1987); Onderko v. Richmond Mfg. Co., 31 Ohi...