A plaintiff sued her lawyer and banker for losses in real estate investments. The jury found the lawyer negligent but also found the plaintiff negligent and attributed 70% of the negligence to her and 30% to the lawyer. The judge denied the plaintiff recovery for the lawyer's malpractice based on comparative negligence. The plaintiff appealed but did not object correctly to the judge's instruction, resulting in the judgments being affirmed for the lawyer and banker.

Clark v. Rowe (1998)
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
428 Mass. 339

Learn more about this case at [ Ссылка ]

---

Law School Data has over 50,000 case briefs and a one-of-a-kind brief tool to instantly brief millions of US cases with just the name or case cite.

Check out all of our case briefs: [ Ссылка ]

Briefs come with built in LSDefine and DeepDive, which allow you to read as quickly or as deeply as you want. Each brief has a built in legal dictionary and recursive summaries that go into more and more detail, until you eventually hit the original case text.

Subscribe for new videos every week: [ Ссылка ]

свернуть