(a) Contributory negligence shall not bar recovery in an action by any plaintiff, or the
plaintiff’s legal representative, to recover damages for negligence resulting in death,
personal injury, or property damage, if the negligence was not greater than the causal
total negligence of the defendant or defendants, but the damage shall be diminished
by general verdict in proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the plaintiff.
Where recovery is allowed against more than one defendant, each defendant shall be
liable for that proportion of the total dollar amount awarded as damages in the ratio
of the amount of the defendant’s causal negligence to the amount of causal negligence
attributed to all defendants against whom recovery is allowed.
(b) Contributory and comparative negligence shall be prohibited as a defense to limit
a plaintiff’s recovery for damages in an action for a negligence claim relating to
a sexual act as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 3251 or sexual conduct as defined in 13 V.S.A. § 2821. (Added 1969, No. 234 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. date see note; amended 1979, No. 179 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. May 5, 1980; 2023, No. 90 (Adj. Sess.), § 1, eff. April 22, 2024.)
Webb v. Navistar Int'l Transp. Corp., 692 A.2d 343 (Vt. 1996). · cites it 12דJustice Morse concludes that Bruce Webb is more than fifty percent responsible, as a matter of law, and therefore, under 12 V.S.A. § 1036 (comparative negligence), he would enter judgment for defendant.”
Levine v. Wyeth, 2006 VT 107 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 4ד12 V.S.A. § 1036. Our traditional rule is that multiple tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable.”
Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 753 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1988). · cites it 2ד§ 60 -258a(d) (1983); Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1036 (Supp. 1987); Ohio Rev.”
Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1983). · cites it 2דAnn. tit. 42, § 7102 (Purdon 1982 and Supp.”
Favreau v. Miller, 591 A.2d 68 (Vt. 1991). · cites it 4ד12 V.S.A. § 1036. If she was primarily to blame for her fall and injuries, she cannot recover.”
Hilen v. Hays, 673 S.W.2d 713 (Ky. 1984). · cites it 2ד1 (Supp. 1982). (26) South Dakota, S.D.Comp.Laws Ann.”
Plante v. Johnson, 565 A.2d 1346 (Vt. 1989). · cites it 5דDefendant advances three theories to support her argument of an election by plaintiff: the first under 12 V.S.A. § 1036, the comparative negligence statute; a second based on policy considerations under the Dram Shop Act; and a third under Vermont case law.”
Langlois v. Town of Proctor, 2014 VT 130 (Vt. 2014). · cites it 2דFinally, applying comparative negligence irrespective of when a plaintiffs negligence occurs in relation to the completion of a defendant’s tort would be less confusing for the jury and appears to be the best policy in that *155 the timing of plaintiffs negligence would not…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.