Opinion ID: 2226554
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Abandonment of Comparative Fault Defense.

Text: Finally, Luigi's claims the district court erred in concluding that it abandoned the comparative fault defense. In its decision, the court stated: The comparative fault defense was asserted at the time of filing defendant's answer, but was not specified in any detail in subsequent pleadings. Defendant made no reference to the comparative fault defense during trial and has not asserted any specification of negligence. Under the circumstances, the court concludes that defendant has abandoned the comparative fault defense. Luigi's asserts the court erred in determining that a party must plead specifications of negligence in order to assert comparative fault. The court did not state that specifications of negligence had to be pled as an affirmative defense of comparative fault. It simply noted that such allegations were not pled. In any event, the court also found that Paul was not negligent in any way that caused his injuries. We believe this finding is supported by substantial evidence and precludes Luigi's argument on this issue. AFFIRMED.