← back to the Substrate Record

qid 1298 · law

Question: A baseball fan purchased two tickets for a World Series baseball game. The fan contacted his best friend and invited him to go to the game. The friend, who was a fanatic baseball fan, eagerly agreed. The fan told the friend that the game started at 7:00 p. m. and that he would pick him up at about 5:00 p. m. so they could get there early to watch batting practice. They were driving to the game together when the fan sped up to cross an intersection while the traffic signal was changing from amber to red. As he reached the intersection, the fan was traveling at 50 m. p. h. although the posted speed limit was 25 m. p. h. Simultaneously, a car entered the intersection on red and collided with the fan's vehicle. The friend suffered a broken pelvis in the collision. This jurisdiction has adopted the following "modified" comparative negligence statute:"A negligent plaintiff is entitled to obtain a recovery provided plaintiff's negligence is not equal to or greater than that of the defendant's; otherwise no recovery is permitted. "Suppose the friend brings suit against the driver of the car that entered the intersection on the red light to recover damages for his injury. Ajury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The fan was 55 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The driver was 45 percent negligent in driving through the red light; and (3) The friend suffered $100,000 in damages. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the friend in the amount of

  1. $45,000. 00
  2. $50,000.00
  3. nothing, because the fan was more negligentthan the driver.
  4. A split judgment where the fan pays $55,000.00 and the driver pays $45,000.00
  5. $100,000.00 but paid by both the fan and the driver
  6. $45,000.00 but only from the driver's insurance
  7. $55,000. 00
  8. $55,000.00 but only from the fan's insurance
  9. $55,000.00 from the driver as the fan was more negligent
  10. $100,000. 00

Our answer: J. $100,000. 00 Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

A machine check confirms the quoted words appear at the source. A person has not yet reviewed these. EARN MARKS as a Human Reviewer

How it was answered

Stored method, replayed by code (kind: formula)

card: formula · card sha256 6a8178d92c8e2b70…

Current source

Cornell LII Wex, "law of indivisible injury"

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/law_of_indivisible_injury

“Law of indivisible injury is a tort law concept that allows plaintiffs to recover damages from an injury caused by multiple parties, whose acts cannot be separated to assess their direct harm. In such a situation, each defendant, or party whose acts may have caused the harm, is liable for all of the plaintiff’s injury.”

Source quote machine-checked (exact quote)

retrieved 2026-09-18T00:33:48.399Z

page text sha256 323a5d5c137bd814… · content sha256 e958b514c5dacad6…

addendum formula_qid1298.formula_ADDENDUM_source_rs20260918T003348Z · sha256 ce0eab0bfb6fa59e… · replaces the version below, addendum sha256 cab57603bd941095…

Earlier version (superseded)

No public source has been found for this card yet (3 places checked internally).

addendum formula_qid1298.formula_ADDENDUM_source · sha256 cab57603bd941095…

If you have a Citable Source to dispute or challenge this, ADD IT so we can correct the answer by appending, never deleting. — hello@lianabanyan.com