Philadelphia Pennsylvania Jury Instruction - 6.6.1 General Instruction - Comparative Negligence Defense

• Category: Federal - Jury Instructions
• State: Multi-State
• County: Philadelphia
• Control #: US-11CF-6-6-1
• Format: Word; Rich Text

Description

This form contains sample jury instructions, to be used across the United States. These questions are to be used only as a model, and should be altered to more perfectly fit your own cause of action needs. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 6.6.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense: In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the legal system follows the principle of comparative negligence when it comes to determining liability in personal injury cases. Comparative negligence is a defense strategy that allows defendants to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident or their own injuries. Under this jury instruction, the judge will guide the jurors on how to consider comparative negligence and its potential impact on the final verdict. The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that the jury understands the concept of comparative negligence and applies it appropriately when determining fault and proportionate compensation. Types of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 6.6.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense: 1. Pure Comparative Negligence: In this type of comparative negligence, the jury is instructed to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident or incident. The plaintiff can still recover damages, even if they are found to be mostly responsible for the harm suffered. However, the amount of compensation would be reduced in proportion to their assigned percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff is found 50% at fault and awarded $100,000, they would receive only $50,000. 2. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Rule): Under this type of comparative negligence, the plaintiff is barred from recovering any compensation if they are found to be equally or more responsible for the accident or injuries than the defendant. However, if the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault, they can still recover damages. The amount of compensation awarded will be reduced based on their assigned percentage of fault. 3. Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Rule): Similar to the 50% rule, under the 51% rule, the plaintiff will be entirely barred from recovering compensation if they are found to be 51% or more responsible for the accident or their injuries. However, if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still pursue damages, but their awarded amount will be reduced in proportion to their assigned percentage of fault. Jurors will be provided with these various types of comparative negligence instructions in order to determine the appropriate allocation of fault and subsequent compensation in a personal injury case. It is crucial for the jury to carefully consider the evidence and apply the principles of comparative negligence to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 6.6.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense: In Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, the legal system follows the principle of comparative negligence when it comes to determining liability in personal injury cases. Comparative negligence is a defense strategy that allows defendants to argue that the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to the occurrence of the accident or their own injuries. Under this jury instruction, the judge will guide the jurors on how to consider comparative negligence and its potential impact on the final verdict. The purpose of this instruction is to ensure that the jury understands the concept of comparative negligence and applies it appropriately when determining fault and proportionate compensation. Types of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Jury Instruction — 6.6.1 GeneraInstructionio— - Comparative Negligence Defense: 1. Pure Comparative Negligence: In this type of comparative negligence, the jury is instructed to assign a percentage of fault to each party involved in the accident or incident. The plaintiff can still recover damages, even if they are found to be mostly responsible for the harm suffered. However, the amount of compensation would be reduced in proportion to their assigned percentage of fault. For example, if the plaintiff is found 50% at fault and awarded $100,000, they would receive only $50,000. 2. Modified Comparative Negligence (50% Rule): Under this type of comparative negligence, the plaintiff is barred from recovering any compensation if they are found to be equally or more responsible for the accident or injuries than the defendant. However, if the plaintiff is less than 50% at fault, they can still recover damages. The amount of compensation awarded will be reduced based on their assigned percentage of fault. 3. Modified Comparative Negligence (51% Rule): Similar to the 50% rule, under the 51% rule, the plaintiff will be entirely barred from recovering compensation if they are found to be 51% or more responsible for the accident or their injuries. However, if the plaintiff is found to be 50% or less at fault, they can still pursue damages, but their awarded amount will be reduced in proportion to their assigned percentage of fault. Jurors will be provided with these various types of comparative negligence instructions in order to determine the appropriate allocation of fault and subsequent compensation in a personal injury case. It is crucial for the jury to carefully consider the evidence and apply the principles of comparative negligence to ensure a fair and just outcome.