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.
