In Wassell v. Adams the plaintiff was 97% responsible for the attack she suffered in a hotel room when she opened her door for a stranger. As a result, the jury awarded her 3% of an $850,000 verdict, or $25,500. The appeals court agreed, holding that:
A) she would recover nothing because was primarily responsible for what happened
B) she would recover nothing because the criminal, who was not caught, was the responsible party, not the hotel owner
C) she would recover the entire verdict because the defendant was found partly responsible
D) she would recover the three percent under the comparative negligence rule
E) none of the other choices

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

The plaintiff would recover the three percent under the comparative negligence rule, which allows a plaintiff to recover damages even if they were partly responsible for the harm they suffered, as long as their responsibility does not exceed a certain percentage set by the court. In this case, the plaintiff was found to be 97% responsible, which means she can only recover 3% of the damages awarded. This is in line with the concept of proportionality in tort law, which seeks to allocate liability according to the degree of fault of each party involved.

In Wassell V