Duffy is a passenger in a car that Caleb is driving when an accident occurs. Both Caleb and Duffy are emotionally rattled, but neither is physically hurt. Caleb is not liable to Dufy on a negligence theory because

a. both parties were emotionally rattled.
b. Caleb apparently did not intend to cause an accident.
c. Duffy must have been comparatively negligent.
d. Duffy was not injured

Both parties were emotionally rattled

Explanation:

Since both Dufy and Calen were emotionally rattled, Caleb is not responsible to Dufy. As the negligence theory puts, Comparative negligence is to be seen when both (plaintiff, accused) are in a state of negligence.

In simple words, it would mean that if the plaintiff was 10% negligent during the time of accident/mishappening than she would be responsible for only 90% of the recovery she has claimed.

Since here both were completely emotionally rattled, Dufy missed on a chance to convict the accused Caleb of causing an accident.

you will have $2593.74 in 10 years if you set aside $1,000 at 10%

you will have $9321.91 in 20 years if you set aside $2000 at 8%

you will have $1469.32 in 5 years if you set aside $1000 at 8%

you will have $1296.87 in 10 years if you set aside $500 at 10%

you will have $239.66 in 15 years if you set aside $100 at 6%

you will have $4660.96 in 20 years if you set aside $1000 at 8%