(A) Example.

Floyd sprayed a toxic chemical in Andy's hair thinking it was

hair tonic. Andy needs medical assistance, therefore Barney puts Andy
in the squad car and drives off to the hospital. On the way, lightning
strikes the left front tire and blows the tire out. Andy suffers two broken
legs. Is Floyd liable for the broken legs?

Answer. First of all "but for" Floyd's mistake, Andy would have never
had to go to the hospital, but (1) such an accident was foreseeable and
(2) there was a superseding intervening force

X. DEFENSES TO NEGLIGENCE. An individual who is negligent may not have to pay damages if he has a
defense. The following are recognized defenses to negligence.

A. Assumption of Risk. The first defense is "assumption of the risk." A plaintiff is said to have assumed
the risk of certain harm if he has voluntarily consented to his chance that the harm will occur.

1. Requirements for this Defense. The text lists two requirement of this defense: (1) knowledge of
the risk and (2) voluntary assumption of the risk.

a. Example. Andy likes to watch bronco riding. He goes to the rodeo and tells the operator
that he wants to ride a bronco. The operator tells Andy that this is dangerous and he
could be hurt. Andy say "let's do!!" Andy signs release forms. Andy is subsequently
thrown from the bronco and breaks a leg. The owner may assert the defense.

b. Example. What happens if Andy just wanted to ride an ordinary horse and the owner
said this horse is fine for riding purposes. When Andy gets on the horse throws him.

Answer. No assumption of risk. A plaintiff does not assume a risk different

from or greater than the risk normally carried by the activity.

B. Contributory Negligence.

1. Introduction. This defense is loved by defendants, particularly insurance companies.

2. Definition. The essence of this defense is that a plaintiff who does not take reasonable care to
protect his own safety is negligent. If the plaintiff's negligence contributes to his injuries then
the plaintiff CAN NOT RECOVER ANYTHING.

3. KEY COMMENT. Contributory negligence is not a defense to intentional torts or strict

liability.

C. Comparative Negligence. Contributory negligence is an "all or nothing" system. In contrast, the

comparative negligence system rejects the all or nothing approach.

1. Definition. Under comparative negligence, liability is divided between the plaintiff and
defendant in proportion to their relative fault.

2. Example. Plaintiff suffers damages of $100,000. A jury finds that plaintiff was 30% negligent
and that Defendant was 70% negligent. Plaintiff will recover $70,000 (i.e. $100,000 minus 30%
x $100,000).

D. Last Clear Chance. This is a defense to contributory negligence.

1. Definition. The general impact of this rule is: "If just before the accident, the defendant has an

28