Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P invested in some real estate and lost money. She blamed D, her lawyer, and Potter (D), her banker. P sued Ds for malpractice. The judge directed a verdict for Potter, and by special verdict, the jury found in favor of D with respect to a loan refinance. The jury found D’s negligence was 30% as compared to P’s negligence which was 70%. The judge applied comparative fault and found that P takes nothing from D. P appealed. The court sua sponte brought up the issues of comparative fault on the appeal.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co