Question

A child swallowed a small part from a toy and is injured as a result. The child was three year old, and the toy was made for children 10 and up. The box clearly stated that the toy was made for children 10-years old and up and also had warnings about how parents should always supervise their children when playing with the toy. The box also said the product was not to be swallowed. In this case, the child's parent was not supervising the three year old when he swallowed the toy part. As a result, the jury determines that the toy manufacturer (defendant) was 20% liable, but the majority of the liability rests with the parent who did not supervise the child. Under which system of negligence can the plaintiff recover damages for the 20% liability of the company? a) Strict liability Assumption of the risk b) Modified comparative negligence c) Pure comparative negligence d) Contributory negligence

Answer 1

C. Pure comparative negligence

Step-by-step explanation:

Pure Comparative negligence is a form of partial legal defense. In this, a person who is partially involved in a damage is able to recover in negligence based claims. The person is able to recover the claim based on his involvement in the cause of injury.

In the given case, the plaintiff is able to recover the damages under the pure comparative negligence. Because under this legal defense only, the plaintiff is able to recover the claims in partial negligence based claims. In the given case, the child's parents are more liable (80%) than the company because it clearly stated that toy is for 10 years and above kids.

So, the correct answer is option C.