Alice was driving her car when she suddenly swerved to avoid a child running into the street, causing her to collide with Bob's parked vehicle. Simultaneously, heavy rainfall had made the roads slippery, contributing to the accident. Alice sues both Bob for the damage to her car and the city for inadequate road maintenance. Which of the following best describes the legal principle that governs the allocation of liability in this scenario?
Comparative negligence limits Alice's recovery if her swerving was a response to a difficult situation.
The doctrine of last clear chance suggests that Bob has some liability based on the evaluation of the city's road conditions.
Joint and several liability applies if both Bob and the city contributed to the accident.
Strict liability is relevant in situations involving Bob and the city, based on their actions related to negligence.
Joint and several liability applies when multiple parties contribute to the harm suffered by the plaintiff. In this scenario, both Bob's parked vehicle and the city's inadequate road maintenance were contributing factors to the accident. Therefore, both Bob and the city can be held liable for the damages caused to Alice. The other options incorrectly apply different legal principles that do not appropriately govern the allocation of liability when multiple causes are present.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is joint and several liability?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does comparative negligence work?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What are the differences between negligence and strict liability?