F: P and D were involved in a car accident resulting injuries to P. It was found out that both men had consumed alcohol, and D was traveling in excess of speed limit.
P brought a negligence action against D, and D answered that P was contributorially negligent. Judgment entered for D. Ac affirmed, holding that comparative negligence is not the law in Tenne.
R: So long as a P’s negligence remains less than D’s negligence, P may recover; in such a case, P’s damages are to be reduced in proportion to the percentage of the total negligence attributable to the P.
1. pure negligence: P’s damages are reduced in proportion to the percentage negligence attributed to him. Ex) P responsible for 90 percent of the negligence that caused his injuries nevertheless may recover 10 percent of his damages
2. Modified negligence: P recover as in pure jurisdictions, but only if the P’s negligence either
i) does not exceed (50 percent jurisdictions) or (D is equally or more at fault)
ii) is less than (49 percent jurisdictions) the D’s negligence. (D is more at fault)
P (fault 90%, recovery 10%, damage $10M) <-> D (fault 10%, recovery 90%, damage $1) => causes problem in pure negligence