Yes, Massachusetts is a comparative negligence state with a 51% bar. This means if it is determined that a plaintiff is the cause of the tort by 51%, he or she does not recovery anything. If the liability is less than 51%, the total of the amount in controversy is subtracted by the percentage of the plaintiff's liability.
For example, you are suing me for $100,000.
If you were...
51% liable for the incident, you recover nothing.
50% liable for the incident, you recover $50,000.
30% liable for the incident, you recover $70,000.
Therefore, the combined total of the plaintiff's negligence plus the negligence of the defendant(s) should equal 100%. It's a good way to correctly establish/check the recovery amount.
contributory
more negligent, most negligent
yes, if your states liability statue is a ''comparative negligent' state which it must be.........
Massachusetts
If there is no fault, then by definition there is no negligent party - negligence implies fault.
Massachusetts has no state gem.
If a home inspector has been negligent, contact the state. They can direct you to the proper procedures for filing a complaint.
Massachusetts is actually neither. It is the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, but it is considered a state.
Massachusetts Volunteers came from the state of Massachusetts.
The state soil of Massachusetts is Paxton.
The State of Massachusetts was created in 2007.
No, Massachusetts was the 13th state, in the U.S.A.