Assuming all negligent elements are met, Maxrun PC should recognize defenses to lessen liability. The two negligence defenses are contributory and comparative negligence. Under the contributory negligence doctrine, failure from the plaintiff to act with reasonable care in attending to his or her own safety is a complete defense. (Mallor. Key concept 9). For example, if Gunter is at all liable for the damages to his hardware, no defenses will be awarded. Maxrun PC may raise the notion that they continually remind customers of the necessity to “back up” a copy of the hard drive on their computers (Found and Lost. Pg 2). As a result, Gunter may risk losing the hard drive upon entering the agreement, which is a voluntary consent to a known danger (Mallor, Key Concept 9. Pg 2). Maxrun PC may blame Gunter for not acting with reasonable care and in the result may forfeit total liability.…show more content… Key concept 9 pg.1).Gunter may have a chance in comparative negligence, if the court decides to choose lesser confining results. Maxrun PC may raise the question as to why Gunter was not able to back up his hard drive which the company states as a “painless precaution” (Found and Lost Pg 2). In contention, Gunter must prove that he was not aware or assured that his hard drive would be returned. In this case, the technician assured him that the service department would return any computer parts that would be replaced which would contribute to strengthening defense in the negligence case. Maxwell PC may most likely pay damages lesser than what is demanded by Gunter if the court decides use the comparative negligence
