McIntyre v. Balentine: The case of McIntyre v. Balentine is one of the landmark cases in the United States for its contribution to the adoption of a modified comparative fault system in Tennessee. Under this system, the plaintiff can receive damages if his fault is less than that of the defendant. In particular, the claimant's damages are reduced to reflect the extent of his fault. In situations involving multiple tortfeasors, the plaintiff's award of damages is valid as long as his or her fault is less than the total fault of all tortfeasors (“Comparative Fault and the Empty Chair,” n.d.). The case was resolved under the doctrines of contributory negligence and comparative negligence. The application of these doctrines is fueled by the need to determine the essential difference in fault or legal obligation between a party or third party and a negligent perpetrator. Actions Contributing to the Lawsuit: Harry Douglas McIntyre, the plaintiff, was involved in a car accident along with Clifford Balentine, the defendant, in the early morning of November 2, 1986. The accident, which occurred near Smith's Truck Stop in Savannah, Tennessee caused serious injuries to McIntyre (“McIntyre v. Balentine,” 2013). During the time of the crash, Balentine was traveling south on Highway 69 and McIntyre entered the highway from the truck stop parking lot. Minutes after entering the highway, McIntyre's pickup truck was struck by Balentine's Peterbilt tractor. McIntyre and Balentine had consumed alcohol the evening before the crash. Notably, when McIntyre's blood level was measured after the accident, it was 0.17% by weight while the texts... center of paper... legal principles relating to tort litigation. The main effect of the ruling is its contribution to the need to harmonize these legal principles with comparative guilt, which will have to be conducted in the future. In conclusion, McIntyre vs. Balentine was a landmark case in the United States regarding contributory negligence in a lawsuit. . This lawsuit was filed following an accident in which the plaintiff and defendant were involved although they disputed each other's claims about the timeline of events preceding the accident. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendant on the basis that they were equally at fault despite the fact that the plaintiff had suffered serious injuries. The Court of Appeals upheld that ruling as comparative negligence is not law in the state and affirming the admissibility of the criminal presumption of intoxication as evidence in a civil case.