The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

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.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.