Clark v. Rowe

428 Mass. 339 (1998)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P invested in some real estate and lost money. She blamed D, her lawyer, and Potter (D), her banker. P sued Ds for malpractice. The judge directed a verdict for Potter, and by special verdict, the jury found in favor of D with respect to a loan refinance. The jury found D’s negligence was 30% as compared to P’s negligence which was 70%. The judge applied comparative fault and found that P takes nothing from D. P appealed. The court sua sponte brought up the issues of comparative fault on the appeal.