John was driving his car in a careless way, failing to drive as a reasonably prudent
person would under the driving conditions. Ramona was crossing the street in a careless
way, failing to cross as a reasonably prudent person would. John struck and injured
Ramona with the car John was driving. At trial, it was determined that John was 80
percent at fault and that Ramona was 20 percent at fault. The injuries sustained
amounted to $100,000. Explain how much, if any, recovery Ramona would receive in a
state that applies the contributory negligence rule. Do the same thing for a state that
applies the comparative negligence rule.
Morris made two purchases. He purchased his neighbor Cordelia’s typewriter and a
computer from Crazy Computers. Regarding the typewriter, Cordelia had bought it on
credit from Jack’s Typewriters. Cordelia had financed the purchase with Jack’s and
signed a promissory note and a security agreement covering the purchase. The creditor,
Jack’s, did not file a financing statement, relying on the concept of automatic perfection
for purchase money security interests in consumer goods. Morris was unaware of the
history of the typewriter. The computer was subject to a security interest in favor of
Country Bank, which had perfected its security interest by filing. Morris, by
coincidence, knew of this security interest when Morris purchased the computer.
Unfortunately, neither Cordelia nor Crazy Computers paid the secured creditors who
now seek to repossess the collateral from Morris. What will be the likely outcome of
this case?