- Joined
- Dec 28, 2014
First, Wisconsin uses a modified comparative negligence rule, which in Wisconsin requires the plaintiff be 51% or more responsible, but second, this isn't a negligence suit. It's a 1983 suit for violation of civil rights under the U.S. Constitution and requires intentional acts or the almost as stringent standard of deliberate indifference, which violate clearly established law.Rick doesn't seem to understand that if a car is barreling toward you, and you can avoid being hit by it by stepping out of the way, and you don't, that makes you 50% at fault because you didn't move the fuck out of the way when you easily could have done so and avoided the car hitting your stupid ass in the first place.
So mere negligence isn't implied and wouldn't be sufficient in any event.
That doesn't mean Pat's utter refusal to mitigate damages can't bite him in the ass because that's also an affirmative defense. So is the fact this mental retard has in fact deliberately provoked the very responses he's complaining about.
