In this case, Don Streater and Albert Hunt were driving on the opposite sides. The accident was occurred, but luckily, nobody was killed. However, Streater was heavily injuries. The cost of medical was approximately one hundred thousand dollars. Streater sued Hunt because Hunt was the reason that caused accident. Hunt drove the opposite of Streater. The, Hunt was looking for the map at his passenger seat. His view on the road was off, and the car turned to Streater’s direction travel. With the information, the case would be easy to solve. Hunt had to pay the cost for Streater’s treatment because Hunt caused the accident. However, both drivers violated the law of driving. Specific, Hunt caused the accident because he looked at the passenger …show more content…
Hunt was fault because he lacked of concentration when driving. However, he did not have fully responsible for Streater’s injury. If Streater wore the seat belt, then he would get lighter injuries. When the case was not clear about who should pay for the damage of an accident, we put in in two categories. There are contributory negligence and comparative negligence. Negligence was the term used when an accident happened without reasonable or purpose from any parties, but it created harm to on party or even every party. If the negligent cause the damage for other person, then the negligent had to pay the cost of recovery for the injured. If the injured also contributed in his damage as Streater did, then the negligence was separated into two type: contributory negligence and comparative negligence. In the contributory, Streater was not wearing his seat belt during the accident occurred. Streater had entirely or a partially responsible for his injuries. It did not matter that Hunt also involves in the accident. The contributory was against Streater as a plaintiff. Contributory negligence adjudged Streater would receive the recovery cost from Hunt, but it would be reduced, or he would not receive any from Hunt because of his contributed in his