What legal doctrine provides that a plaintiff in a negligence action can succeed with a claim without providing direct evidence of the defendant's negligence? What does this doctrine literally mean? And how does the plaintiff prove their case? In order to receive full credit, you must answer all three questions.

Discuss what must be determined in order to prove a breach of duty occurred on behalf of the defendant.
Why is an attorney held to a higher standard of care than most other professions? What is that standard of care?


Doug is driving down the street and performs an illegal U-turn at an intersection.  Pete has the right of way but drives through a red light at the intersection and hits Doug as he is performing the illegal U-turn. Pete files a negligence suit against Doug.  The jury finds in favor of Pete and finds that he suffered $200,000 in damages. Consider the following scenarios and answer each question based on the percentage of fault determined by the jury:

The jury also found that Pete was 20% at fault because he ran the red light.  How much does Pete recover in a contributory negligence state?
The jury also found that Pete was 30% at fault because he ran the red light.  How much does Pete recover in a pure comparative negligence state?
The jury also found that Pete was 60% at fault because he ran the red light.  How much does Pete recover in a modified comparative negligence state where the designated percentage is 50%?  
The jury also found that Pete was 50% at fault because he ran the red light.  How much would he recover in Ohio and why?

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

Doctrine Allowing for Negligence Action Without Direct Evidence of Negligence The legal doctrine you are referring to is Res ipsa loquitur It literally means the thing speaks for itself in Latin This ... View the full answer