A defendant is not confined to denials of the allegations of the complaint or petition, but is entitled to set out new matter in defense or as a basis for affirmative relief. In a suit in which plaintiff alleges that defendant has been negligent, contributory negligence by the plaintiff is sometimes a defense which a defendant can raise.
This form is a generic example of an answer and affirmative defense that may be referred to when preparing such a pleading for your particular state.
Title: Understanding Michigan's Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of Contributory Negligence Keywords: Michigan, answer, defendant, civil lawsuit, affirmative defense, contributory negligence Introduction: In the state of Michigan, when a defendant is accused of contributing to a plaintiff's injuries through negligence, they have the option to assert the affirmative defense of contributory negligence in their answer to the lawsuit. This defense asserts that the plaintiff's own actions or negligence also played a role in causing the harm for which they are seeking compensation. This article provides a comprehensive overview of Michigan's Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of Contributory Negligence. Types of Michigan Answer by Defendant in a Civil Lawsuit Alleging the Affirmative Defense of Contributory Negligence: 1. Comparative Fault: Under the comparative fault system, Michigan follows the doctrine of modified comparative negligence. This means that even if the defendant is found partially at fault, they can still recover damages from the plaintiff. However, if the defendant's negligence is found to be equal to or greater than the plaintiff's negligence, they may be barred from recovering any damages. 2. Assumption of Risk: In some cases, defendants may argue that the plaintiff willingly assumed the risk involved in the activity or situation that led to the injury. If successful, this defense could absolve the defendant of liability, as the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily exposed themselves to the potential harm. 3. Last Clear Chance: The Last Clear Chance doctrine holds that even if the plaintiff contributed to the accident through negligence, if the defendant had the last clear opportunity to avoid the harm and failed to do so, they may still be held accountable for the resulting damages. 4. Open and Obvious Hazard: Defendants could argue that the dangerous condition or hazard that caused the plaintiff's injury was open and obvious, meaning that a reasonable person should have noticed and taken steps to avoid it. Therefore, they assert that the plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in avoiding the hazard contributed to their own injuries. Conclusion: When facing a civil lawsuit in Michigan that alleges contributory negligence, defendants can assert different types of answers to defend themselves. Whether by utilizing comparative fault, assumption of risk, last clear chance, or open and obvious hazard, defendants commonly assert affirmative defenses to mitigate their liability. Understanding these legal concepts is crucial for defendants and their legal representatives in effectively responding to civil claims alleging contributory negligence in Michigan.
