If you want, I can try to draw you a picture. Would that help you understand why your example is wrong?
28 Likes
IANAL But! I think the original law suit (LK) goes first, then the cross claim(MB) Then the jusy deliberates the whole damn mess.
2 Likes
Yes! I forgot MB’s counterclaims against LK. That would go after LK’s claims and the defenses are done. Thank you!
9 Likes
This needs to be seen by everyone here and it is to me proof the LexInVA is 100% on the money!
28 Likes
Hah hah, that’s so funny! All she has to do is be a student of third grade English, and she read the rules. Nothing terribly sexy about her conclusion! It doesn’t take a PhD level degree to figure these oy, @CurrentlyHorseless.
16 Likes
Plus Spot could have been sitting still. Just because he was told to run doesn’t mean he did it. Maybe he’s a beagle who always does the opposite of what he’s told. Lol.
13 Likes
We will probably never know the answer to this, but I will always wonder if the verdict in the criminal trial would have been different if only 10 of them needed to agree on it instead of all 12.
3 Likes
That is OK, you think wrongly about lots of things.
The rest of us understand.
23 Likes
I agree that Lex must have hit a nerve but darn, why do people have to do things like this.
22 Likes
I really honestly think that sometimes the page does not load all the responses. There are definitely times when I have seen posts later on that I completely missed just within the previous hour or so.
Huge thanks again to the people with actual legal knowledge who are willing to share it here with the rest of us. 
5 Likes
My example is an example, so please explain how an example can be “wrong”.
If the truth of the matter were as described in my example, and the jury after all evidence was presented thought that SGF was 20% responsible, are you saying 20% < 51% so SGF, you’re excused owing nothing? Then they consider MB and decide he is only 45% responsible and 45% < 51%, so he’s excused and owes nothing? At this point the first two defendants account for 65%, so RC could not be more than 35% responsible, so they don’t even need to discuss her?
The blog said LK would not recover damages if she was more responsible than the defendant. In my example she is not more responsible than any of the individual defendants.
Well, except for the pictures. That factors into comprehension too.
2 Likes
Every time I hear this kind of thing I think about that lawsuit in the Charles Dickens story, what was it, Bleak house? Where the brother and sister inherited a lawsuit that argued an inheritance spanning generations, which was being obfuscated and delayed and demurred purposefully to line the lawyers pockets and eat into the inheritance, and just basically fund a class of lawyers, as Liong as the money lasted. Oh what a story! It could be an entirely different novel title, sorry if I got yhat wrong.
7 Likes
LOL. I was think about 2nd grade math.
1 Like
How many times does someone have to give “you”, “only you”, just the “one” person who “refuses” to understand, an “example” of why they are wrong, not “wrong” but just plain wrong?
@ekat has explained it, given examples, given more examples, stood on their head with examples.
You appear to ignore the big points and then pretend what was said was something totally different.
The blog agrees with @ekat. You are the one who is wrong here.
32 Likes
Ah, true enough. I have not seen those books for a long time, so I forgot about the pictures.
But as we often say in discussions of people on horses, the picture only captures one moment in time. Maybe Spot sat down immediately after that picture. Lol.
4 Likes
No, you missed the entire point once again. Lol. But not funny. It’s a basic English comprehension you seem to be unable to grasp
There is no “math” involved. It’s about reading for comprehension. And, apparently, you can’t even comprehend the example of your inability to read for comprehension.
And I was being verrrrry generous, stating third grade, in case you came from some backwoods north carolina school, @CurrentlyHorseless. Dick and Jane, where they enjoyed their dog spot, was, fo me, in second year nursery school, where we also learned to write in cursive. This kind of reading for comprehension was taught at age FOUR YEARS OLD. Which you are incapable if discerning between reading and math.
16 Likes
Do some people not grasp what’s out there on the internet and/or public information? Some of us are better at the internet, searching, and putting things together than others. Or they simply forget what’s out there. So many little corners of the internet.
Is it creepy? Well, I suppose that’s down to one’s personal opinion.
Someone(s) from here has done quite a bit of digging on me, personally. Sure it’s weird, and their intentions weren’t and aren’t good, IMO.
27 Likes
You are still trying to lump all of the defendants together. As ekat has said before, you need to think of it as 3 SEPARATE trials -
First, no one but LK and SGF. There are 3 or 4 counts against SGF (I forget exactyl how many) Is SGF or LK more than 50 % responsible in the counts against SGF. If SGF is less than 50% responsible in the claims against it in a particular count, then no judgment from SGF for LK for that count.
Next, look at the claims of LK against MB. Again, there are multiple counts against MB. If MB is less than 50% responsible in the claims against him for any particular count, then no judgment from MB for LK for that count.
Same thing then goes for RC.
In determining liability (BEFORE you get to damages) you need to go through the process for each defendant and for each of the counts for each defendant. I don’t think it will go this way, but it could happen that a defendant is determined to have liability for some counts, but not others. Once liability is determined, ONLY then is there a determination as to the damages owed by that particular defendant for the liability the are responsible for.
26 Likes
