Brown v. Keill

580 P.2d 867 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P owned a Jaguar roadster. His son, Britt M., was the permissive driver of P's Jaguar at the time of the collision. D was the driver of the other car involved in the collision. The cost of repair to the Jaguar amounted to $5,423.00. D settled her claim against the driver of the Jaguar out of court. P then sued to recover his property loss. D did not seek to have the son joined as an additional formal party to the action. She did not file a counterclaim or cross-claim. D answered and admitted driving one of the cars involved in the collision but alleged that 90% of the causal negligence was attributable to the driver of the Jaguar and only 10% of the causal negligence was attributable to her. Since her causal negligence was less than the driver of the Jaguar, P should not be permitted to recover under the comparative negligence laws of this state. The court found the driver of the Jaguar was responsible for 90% of the causal negligence, and D was responsible for 10% of the causal negligence. Pursuant to the comparative negligence P was entitled to recover $542.30 or 10% of his total damage from D. P appealed.