Computerized method and system for determining claimant status in premises liability for an accident

• US 20040054558A1
• Filed: 09/09/2002
• Published: 03/18/2004
• Est. Priority Date: 09/09/2002
• Status: Abandoned Application

• Current Assignee: Computer Sciences Corporation (DXC Technology Company)
• Original Assignee: Computer Sciences Corporation (DXC Technology Company)
• Inventors: Wahlbin, Stefan, Reynolds, Gilda
• Application Number:
  US10/238,029
• Publication Number:
  US 20040054558A1
• Time in Patent Office: Days
• US Class Current: 705/4
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 10/10 Office automation; Time management
• CPC Class Codes: G06Q 40/08 Insurance

Abstract

A computer-implemented method and system for determining claimant status in premises liability for an accident is provided. In one embodiment, claimant status in premises liability may be determined from characteristics of the accident. Characteristics of the accident may be provided to a computer system and the characteristics may be evaluated. In some embodiments, the characteristics may include a location of the accident, a jurisdiction, and an insured type.

Claims

1. A computer-implemented method of estimating premises liability for an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining negligence of an insured from at least one of the characteristics;

determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating liability.

2. The method of claim 1, further comprising determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics.

3. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

4. The method of claim 1, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

5. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

6. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

7. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

8. The method of claim 1, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

9. The method of claim 1, wherein determining negligence of the insured comprises determining:

claimant status, duties of the insured to the claimant, a breach of duty of insured to the claimant, and causation.

10. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured.

11. The method of claim 1, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

12. The method of claim 1, wherein determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses comprises determining if the one or more defenses apply, and if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

13. A computer-implemented method of estimating premises liability for an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining a claimant status of a claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining breach of duty using at least one of the characteristics;

determining causation using at least one of the characteristics;

determining applicability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the one or more of the defenses are associated with an estimate of an effect on liability;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating the liability, wherein the liability is based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, the causation, the defenses, and the bars.

14. The method of claim 13, wherein the causation comprises cause in fact and proximate cause.

15. The method of claim 13, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

16. The method of claim 13, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

17. The method of claim 13, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

18. The method of claim 13, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

19. The method of claim 13, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

20. The method of claim 13, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

21. The method of claim 13, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, and the causation, and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

22. The method of claim 13, wherein if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

23. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for estimating premises liability for an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining negligence of an insured from at least one of the characteristics;

determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating liability.

24. The system of claim 23, further comprising determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics.

25. The system of claim 23, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

26. The system of claim 23, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

27. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

28. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

29. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

30. The system of claim 23, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

31. The system of claim 23, wherein determining negligence of the insured comprises determining:

claimant status, duties of the insured to the claimant, a breach of duty of insured to the claimant, and causation.

32. The system of claim 23, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured.

33. The system of claim 23, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

34. The system of claim 23, wherein determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses comprises determining if the one or more defenses apply, and if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

35. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for estimating premises liability for an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining negligence of an insured from at least one of the characteristics;

determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating liability.

36. The carrier medium of claim 35, further comprising determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics.

37. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

38. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

39. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

40. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

41. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

42. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

43. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein determining negligence of the insured comprises determining:

claimant status, duties of the insured to the claimant, a breach of duty of insured to the claimant, and causation.

44. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured.

45. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on negligence of the insured and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

46. The carrier medium of claim 35, wherein determining an effect on liability of one or more defenses comprises determining if the one or more defenses apply, and if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

47. A system configured to estimate liability, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for estimating premises liability for an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining a claimant status of a claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining breach of duty using at least one of the characteristics;

determining causation using at least one of the characteristics;

determining applicability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the one or more of the defenses are associated with an estimate of an effect on liability;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating the liability, wherein the liability is based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, the causation, the defenses, and the bars.

48. The system of claim 47, wherein the causation comprises cause in fact and proximate cause.

49. The system of claim 47, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

50. The system of claim 47, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

51. The system of claim 47, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

52. The system of claim 47, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

53. The system of claim 47, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

54. The system of claim 47, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

55. The system of claim 47, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, and the causation, and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

56. The system of claim 47, wherein if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

57. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for estimating premises liability for an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

determining a claimant status of a claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining duties owed by an insured to the claimant using at least one of the characteristics;

determining breach of duty using at least one of the characteristics;

determining causation using at least one of the characteristics;

determining applicability of one or more defenses from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the one or more of the defenses are associated with an estimate of an effect on liability;

determining whether one or more bars to liability apply using at least one of the characteristics; and

estimating the liability, wherein the liability is based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, the causation, the defenses, and the bars.

58. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein the causation comprises cause in fact and proximate cause.

59. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a percentage.

60. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein the estimated liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

61. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

62. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction.

63. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises an insured type.

64. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a reason that the claimant was on a premises.

65. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein estimating liability comprises determining an estimate of liability based on the claimant status, the duties owed by the insured, the breach of duty, and the causation, and subtracting from the estimate of liability the effect on liability of one or more defenses.

66. The carrier medium of claim 57, wherein if one or more of the defenses apply, determining the effect on liability of the one or more defenses based on why they apply.

67. A computer-implemented method of determining claimant status in premises liability for an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the claimant status from the evaluated characteristics of the accident.

68. The method of claim 67, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

69. The method of claim 67, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprise a jurisdiction and an insured type.

70. The method of claim 67, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction, and wherein the jurisdiction comprises a state or a territory of the United States.

71. The method of claim 67, wherein at least one characteristic comprises an insured type, and wherein the insured type is selected from the group consisting of public, commercial, and residential.

72. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a jurisdiction of the accident distinguishes between invitee, licensee, and trespasser.

73. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a claimant had express or implied permission.

74. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on a premises of the accident for benefit of an insured.

75. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the premises is public, commercial, or residential.

76. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for social, companionship, diversion, or enjoyment of hospitality reasons.

77. The method of claim 67, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for the claimant'"'"'s benefit;

and determining whether the claimant was on the premises for a purpose for which the premises are held open to public.

78. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for determining claimant status in premises liability for an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the claimant status from the evaluated characteristics of the accident.

79. The system of claim 78, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

80. The system of claim 78, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprise a jurisdiction and an insured type.

81. The system of claim 78, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction, and wherein the jurisdiction comprises a state or a territory of the United States.

82. The system of claim 78, wherein at least one characteristic comprises an insured type, and wherein the insured type is selected from the group consisting of public, commercial, and residential.

83. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a jurisdiction of the accident distinguishes between invitee, licensee, and trespasser.

84. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a claimant had express or implied permission.

85. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on a premises of the accident for benefit of an insured.

86. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the premises is public, commercial, or residential.

87. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for social, companionship, diversion, or enjoyment of hospitality reasons.

88. The system of claim 78, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for the claimant'"'"'s benefit;

and determining whether the claimant was on the premises for a purpose for which the premises are held open to public.

89. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for determining claimant status in premises liability for an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the claimant status from the evaluated characteristics of the accident defenses, and bars may be determined from at least one of the characteristics.

90. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

91. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprise a jurisdiction and an insured type.

92. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a jurisdiction, and wherein the jurisdiction comprises a state or a territory of the United States.

93. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein at least one characteristic comprises an insured type, and wherein the insured type is selected from the group consisting of public, commercial, and residential.

94. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a jurisdiction of the accident distinguishes between invitee, licensee, and trespasser.

95. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether a claimant had express or implied permission.

96. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on a premises of the accident for benefit of an insured.

97. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the premises is public, commercial, or residential.

98. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for social, companionship, diversion, or enjoyment of hospitality reasons.

99. The carrier medium of claim 89, wherein determining claimant status comprises determining whether the claimant was on the premises for the claimant'"'"'s benefit;

and determining whether the claimant was on the premises for a purpose for which the premises are held open to public.

100. A computer-implemented method of determining breach of duty in premises liability for an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the breach of duty from the evaluated characteristics.

101. The method of claim 100, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

102. The method of claim 100, wherein the breach of duty comprises a breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant, and wherein evaluating at least one of the characteristics comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed.

103. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

104. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

105. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

106. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to warn the claimant of the dangerous condition.

107. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to remedy the dangerous condition.

108. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured provided adequate warning to the claimant.

109. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was remedied.

110. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed and posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

111. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

112. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

113. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

114. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether adequate warning was provided to claimant, and determining whether claimant had knowledge of the dangerous condition.

115. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed

116. The method of claim 100, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether an insured created the dangerous condition to cause harm.

117. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for determining breach of duty in premises liability for an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the breach of duty from the evaluated characteristics.

118. The system of claim 117, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

119. The system of claim 117, wherein the breach of duty comprises a breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant, and wherein evaluating at least one of the characteristics comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed.

120. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

121. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

122. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

123. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to warn the claimant of the dangerous condition.

124. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to remedy the dangerous condition.

125. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured provided adequate warning to the claimant.

126. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was remedied.

127. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed and posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

128. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

129. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

130. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

131. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether adequate warning was provided to claimant, and determining whether claimant had knowledge of the dangerous condition.

132. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed

133. The system of claim 117, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether an insured created the dangerous condition to cause harm.

134. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for determining breach of duty in premises liability for an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident;

evaluating at least one of the characteristics of the accident; and

determining the breach of duty from the evaluated characteristics.

135. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

136. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein the breach of duty comprises a breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant, and wherein evaluating at least one of the characteristics comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed.

137. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

138. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

139. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

140. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to warn the claimant of the dangerous condition.

141. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured had opportunity to remedy the dangerous condition.

142. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the insured provided adequate warning to the claimant.

143. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for an invitee or a general claimant comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was remedied.

144. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed and posed an unreasonable risk of harm.

145. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was open and obvious.

146. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether actual notice of the dangerous condition was provided to an insured.

147. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether constructive notice of the dangerous condition was provided to the insured.

148. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a licensee comprises determining whether adequate warning was provided to claimant, and determining whether claimant had knowledge of the dangerous condition.

149. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether a dangerous condition existed

150. The carrier medium of claim 134, wherein determining the breach of duty for a trespasser comprises determining whether an insured created the dangerous condition to cause harm.

151. A computer-implemented method of determining causation of a dangerous condition on a premises of an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics for the accident;

determining a cause in fact of a claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the claimant'"'"'s harm resulted from the accident; and

determining a proximate cause of the claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics.

152. The method of claim 151, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

153. A computer-implemented method of determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a cause in fact of an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the cause in fact of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

154. The method of claim 153, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

155. The method of claim 153, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was the sole cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

156. The method of claim 153, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm would not have occurred but for the dangerous condition.

157. The method of claim 153, wherein the determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether there were joint causes to a claimant'"'"'s harm.

158. The method of claim 153, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was caused by at least one alternate cause.

159. The method of claim 153, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether at least one of one or more joint causes was sufficient to cause a claimant'"'"'s harm.

160. The method of claim 153, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing a claimant'"'"'s harm.

161. A computer-implemented method of determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a proximate cause of an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the proximate cause of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

162. The method of claim 161, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

163. The method of claim 161, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the condition was a direct cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

164. The method of claim 161, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was an indirect cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

165. The method of claim 161, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was foreseeable.

166. The method of claim 161, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was foreseeable.

167. The method of claim 161, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was a crime or a tort.

168. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for determining causation of a dangerous condition on a premises of an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics for the accident;

determining a cause in fact of a claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the claimant'"'"'s harm resulted from the accident; and

determining a proximate cause of the claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics.

169. The system of claim 168, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

170. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for determining causation of a dangerous condition on a premises of an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics for the accident;

determining a cause in fact of a claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics, wherein the claimant'"'"'s harm resulted from the accident; and

determining a proximate cause of the claimant'"'"'s harm from at least one of the characteristics.

171. The carrier medium of claim 170, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

172. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a cause in fact of an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the cause in fact of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

173. The system of claim 172, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

174. The system of claim 172, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was the sole cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

175. The system of claim 172, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm would not have occurred but for the dangerous condition.

176. The system of claim 172, wherein the determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether there were joint causes to a claimant'"'"'s harm.

177. The system of claim 172, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was caused by at least one alternate cause.

178. The system of claim 172, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether at least one of one or more joint causes was sufficient to cause a claimant'"'"'s harm.

179. The system of claim 172, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing a claimant'"'"'s harm.

180. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a cause in fact of an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the cause in fact of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

181. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

182. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was the sole cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

183. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm would not have occurred but for the dangerous condition.

184. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein the determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether there were joint causes to a claimant'"'"'s harm.

185. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was caused by at least one alternate cause.

186. The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether at least one of one or more joint causes was sufficient to cause a claimant'"'"'s harm.

The carrier medium of claim 180, wherein determining the cause in fact of the accident comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was a substantial factor in causing a claimant'"'"'s harm.

187. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a proximate cause of an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the proximate cause of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

188. The system of claim 187, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the condition was a direct cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

189. The system of claim 187, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was an indirect cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

190. The system of claim 187, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was foreseeable.

191. The system of claim 187, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was foreseeable.

192. The system of claim 187, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was a crime or a tort.

193. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for determining whether a dangerous condition on a premises is a proximate cause of an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the proximate cause of the accident from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

194. The carrier medium of claim 193, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the condition was a direct cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

195. The carrier medium of claim 193, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether the dangerous condition was an indirect cause of a claimant'"'"'s harm.

196. The carrier medium of claim 193, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s harm was foreseeable.

197. The carrier medium of claim 193, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was foreseeable.

198. The carrier medium of claim 193, wherein determining proximate cause comprises determining whether an intervening force was a crime or a tort.

199. A computer-implemented method of estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability for an accident, comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the contribution of the defense from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

200. The method of claim 199, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a percentage.

201. The method of claim 199, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

202. The method of claim 199, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

203. The method of claim 199, wherein the defense is selected from the group consisting of:

a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, an open and obvious defense, a plain view doctrine defense, a failure to use due care defense, a failure to choose an alternate path defense, a claimant under the influence defense, an implied assumption of risk defense, a failure to heed warning defense, a claimant created the condition or defect defense, a right to rely on owner defense, a knowledge of danger requirement defense, a forgetfulness defense, a distraction defense, a choice of paths rule defense, a disability defense, a youth defense, and a step in the dark defense.

204. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

205. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether the claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

206. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to the claimant.

207. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice.

208. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

209. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

210. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to a claimant.

211. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice of path.

212. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant had full knowledge of a hazard.

213. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant proceeded deliberately.

214. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant had adequate warning of a dangerous condition.

215. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant heeded the warning.

216. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to keep a proper lookout defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was apparent or whether a claimant saw the dangerous condition.

217. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining lighting at a location of the accident.

218. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining contrast of a dangerous condition.

219. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining size of the dangerous condition.

220. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was obstructed, or whether an obstruction was large.

221. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a claimant created condition or defect defense, wherein determining the contribution of the claimant created condition or defect defense comprises determining whether a claimant was solely or partially responsible for a dangerous condition or defect.

222. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a premises is commercial or residential, whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

223. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

224. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether there was a distraction.

225. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant did not appreciate the risks of a dangerous condition.

226. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a defect was patent or obvious.

227. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant visited a location of the accident for daily and commonplace use.

228. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had made repeated visits the location of the accident.

229. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had previous experience with premises of the same kind as a premises at which the accident took place.

230. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a claimant had knowledge of a dangerous condition.

231. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a distraction was present at a location of the accident.

232. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a distraction defense, wherein determining the contribution of the distraction defense comprises determining whether a condition or circumstance diverted a claimant'"'"'s attention.

233. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant selected an unsafe path.

234. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a safe course.

235. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a dangerous course.

236. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of facts which would put a reasonable person on notice of danger.

237. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant had actual knowledge of danger.

238. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant had a physical disability.

239. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was frail or elderly.

240. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was pregnant.

241. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant put forth appropriate effort to protect the claimant'"'"'s safety.

242. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant avoided a position likely to be dangerous to the claimant in light of the claimant'"'"'s disability.

243. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining an age of a claimant.

244. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining maturity of a claimant.

245. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining intelligence of a claimant.

246. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining training of a claimant.

247. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining discretion of a claimant.

248. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining alertness of a claimant.

249. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant has the capacity for negligence.

250. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children of the same age.

251. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same capacity for negligence.

252. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same discretion.

253. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same knowledge.

254. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same experience.

255. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether darkness rendered use of eyesight ineffective to define a claimant'"'"'s surroundings.

256. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s actions were justified.

257. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether any special stress of circumstances inhibited a claimant from finding out obstructions to his or her safe progress.

258. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was familiar with the premises.

259. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether darkness was impenetrable.

260. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether the claimant followed a path of his or her own choosing.

261. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a claimant took reasonable precaution to ensure his or her own safety.

262. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a location of the accident comprised circumstances that would have lulled an ordinary and prudent person into a false sense of security.

263. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether there was reason for a claimant to assume that a location of the accident was free of defects or obstruction.

264. The method of claim 199, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an insured was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting.

265. The method of claim 199, wherein the contribution to the defense is estimated from knowledge obtained from experienced claims adjusters.

266. A system, comprising:

a CPU;

a data memory coupled to the CPU; and

a system memory coupled to the CPU, wherein the system memory is configured to store one or more computer programs executable by the CPU, and wherein the computer programs are executable to implement a method for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability for an accident, the method comprising;

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the contribution of the defense from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

267. The system of claim 266, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a percentage.

268. The system of claim 266, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

269. The system of claim 266, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

270. The system of claim 266, wherein the defense is selected from the group consisting of:

a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, an open and obvious defense, a plain view doctrine defense, a failure to use due care defense, a failure to choose an alternate path defense, a claimant under the influence defense, an implied assumption of risk defense, a failure to heed warning defense, a claimant created the condition or defect defense, a right to rely on owner defense, a knowledge of danger requirement defense, a forgetfulness defense, a distraction defense, a choice of paths rule defense, a disability defense, a youth defense, and a step in the dark defense.

271. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

272. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether the claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

273. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to the claimant.

274. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice.

275. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

276. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

277. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to a claimant.

278. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice of path.

279. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant had full knowledge of a hazard.

280. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant proceeded deliberately.

281. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant had adequate warning of a dangerous condition.

282. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant heeded the warning.

283. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to keep a proper lookout defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was apparent or whether a claimant saw the dangerous condition.

284. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining lighting at a location of the accident.

285. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining contrast of a dangerous condition.

286. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining size of the dangerous condition.

287. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was obstructed, or whether an obstruction was large.

288. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a claimant created condition or defect defense, wherein determining the contribution of the claimant created condition or defect defense comprises determining whether a claimant was solely or partially responsible for a dangerous condition or defect.

289. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a premises is commercial or residential, whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

290. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

291. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether there was a distraction.

292. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant did not appreciate the risks of a dangerous condition.

293. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a defect was patent or obvious.

294. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant visited a location of the accident for daily and commonplace use.

295. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had made repeated visits the location of the accident.

296. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had previous experience with premises of the same kind as a premises at which the accident took place.

297. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a claimant had knowledge of a dangerous condition.

298. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a distraction was present at a location of the accident.

299. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a distraction defense, wherein determining the contribution of the distraction defense comprises determining whether a condition or circumstance diverted a claimant'"'"'s attention.

300. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant selected an unsafe path.

301. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a safe course.

302. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a dangerous course.

303. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of facts which would put a reasonable person on notice of danger.

304. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant had actual knowledge of danger.

305. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant had a physical disability.

306. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was frail or elderly.

307. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was pregnant.

308. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant put forth appropriate effort to protect the claimant'"'"'s safety.

309. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant avoided a position likely to be dangerous to the claimant in light of the claimant'"'"'s disability.

310. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining an age of a claimant.

311. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining maturity of a claimant.

312. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining intelligence of a claimant.

313. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining training of a claimant.

314. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining discretion of a claimant.

315. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining alertness of a claimant.

316. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant has the capacity for negligence.

317. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children of the same age.

318. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same capacity for negligence.

319. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same discretion.

320. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same knowledge.

321. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same experience.

322. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether darkness rendered use of eyesight ineffective to define a claimant'"'"'s surroundings.

323. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s actions were justified.

324. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether any special stress of circumstances inhibited a claimant from finding out obstructions to his or her safe progress.

325. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was familiar with the premises.

326. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether darkness was impenetrable.

327. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether the claimant followed a path of his or her own choosing.

328. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a claimant took reasonable precaution to ensure his or her own safety.

329. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a location of the accident comprised circumstances that would have lulled an ordinary and prudent person into a false sense of security.

330. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether there was reason for a claimant to assume that a location of the accident was free of defects or obstruction.

331. The system of claim 266, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an insured was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting.

332. The system of claim 266, wherein the contribution to the defense is estimated from knowledge obtained from experienced claims adjusters.

333. A carrier medium comprising program instructions, wherein the program instructions are computer-executable to implement a method for estimating a contribution of a defense to premises liability for an accident, the method comprising:

providing to a computer system a set of characteristics of the accident; and

determining the contribution of the defense from at least one of the characteristics of the accident.

334. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a percentage.

335. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein the estimated contribution of a defense to premises liability is expressed as a range of percentage liability.

336. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein at least one of the characteristics comprises a location of the accident.

337. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein the defense is selected from the group consisting of:

a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, an open and obvious defense, a plain view doctrine defense, a failure to use due care defense, a failure to choose an alternate path defense, a claimant under the influence defense, an implied assumption of risk defense, a failure to heed warning defense, a claimant created the condition or defect defense, a right to rely on owner defense, a knowledge of danger requirement defense, a forgetfulness defense, a distraction defense, a choice of paths rule defense, a disability defense, a youth defense, and a step in the dark defense.

338. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

339. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether the claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

340. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to the claimant.

341. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to use due care defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to use due care defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice.

342. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was aware of a hazard.

343. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant should have been aware of a hazard.

344. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an alternate path choice was available to a claimant.

345. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant made a careless choice of path.

346. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant had full knowledge of a hazard.

347. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an implied assumption of risk defense, wherein determining the contribution of the implied assumption of risk defense comprises determining whether a claimant proceeded deliberately.

348. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant had adequate warning of a dangerous condition.

349. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to heed warning defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to heed warning defense comprises determining whether a claimant heeded the warning.

350. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a failure to keep a proper lookout defense, wherein determining the contribution of the failure to keep a proper lookout defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was apparent or whether a claimant saw the dangerous condition.

351. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining lighting at a location of the accident.

352. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining contrast of a dangerous condition.

353. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining size of the dangerous condition.

354. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an open and obvious defense, wherein determining the contribution of the open and obvious defense comprises determining whether a dangerous condition was obstructed, or whether an obstruction was large.

355. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a claimant created condition or defect defense, wherein determining the contribution of the claimant created condition or defect defense comprises determining whether a claimant was solely or partially responsible for a dangerous condition or defect.

356. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a premises is commercial or residential, whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

357. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant failed to avoid a defective or dangerous condition of which the claimant knew or should have known.

358. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether there was a distraction.

359. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a right to rely on owner defense, wherein determining the contribution of the right to rely on owner defense comprises determining whether a claimant did not appreciate the risks of a dangerous condition.

360. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a defect was patent or obvious.

361. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant visited a location of the accident for daily and commonplace use.

362. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had made repeated visits the location of the accident.

363. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a knowledge of danger requirement defense, wherein determining the contribution of the knowledge of danger requirement defense comprises determining whether a claimant had previous experience with premises of the same kind as a premises at which the accident took place.

364. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a claimant had knowledge of a dangerous condition.

365. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a forgetfulness defense, wherein determining the contribution of the forgetfulness defense comprises determining whether a distraction was present at a location of the accident.

366. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a distraction defense, wherein determining the contribution of the distraction defense comprises determining whether a condition or circumstance diverted a claimant'"'"'s attention.

367. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant selected an unsafe path.

368. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a safe course.

369. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of a dangerous course.

370. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether there was evidence of facts which would put a reasonable person on notice of danger.

371. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a choice of paths rule defense, wherein determining the contribution of the choice of paths rule defense comprises determining whether a claimant had actual knowledge of danger.

372. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant had a physical disability.

373. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was frail or elderly.

374. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant was pregnant.

375. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant put forth appropriate effort to protect the claimant'"'"'s safety.

376. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution relating to a disability defense, wherein determining the contribution relating to the disability defense comprises determining whether a claimant avoided a position likely to be dangerous to the claimant in light of the claimant'"'"'s disability.

377. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining an age of a claimant.

378. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining maturity of a claimant.

379. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining intelligence of a claimant.

380. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining training of a claimant.

381. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining discretion of a claimant.

382. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining alertness of a claimant.

383. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant has the capacity for negligence.

384. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children of the same age.

385. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same capacity for negligence.

386. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same discretion.

387. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same knowledge.

388. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a youth defense, wherein determining the contribution of the youth defense comprises determining whether a claimant exercised a degree of care for his or her own safety as ordinarily exercised by children with the same experience.

389. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether darkness rendered use of eyesight ineffective to define a claimant'"'"'s surroundings.

390. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant'"'"'s actions were justified.

391. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether any special stress of circumstances inhibited a claimant from finding out obstructions to his or her safe progress.

392. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether a claimant was familiar with the premises.

393. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether darkness was impenetrable.

394. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether the claimant followed a path of his or her own choosing.

395. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a claimant took reasonable precaution to ensure his or her own safety.

396. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of a step in the dark defense, wherein determining the contribution of the step in the dark defense comprises determining whether a location of the accident comprised circumstances that would have lulled an ordinary and prudent person into a false sense of security.

397. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether there was reason for a claimant to assume that a location of the accident was free of defects or obstruction.

398. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein determining the contribution of the defense comprises determining the contribution of an alternate path defense, wherein determining the contribution of the alternate path defense comprises determining whether an insured was negligent in failing to provide adequate lighting.

399. The carrier medium of claim 333, wherein the contribution to the defense is estimated from knowledge obtained from experienced claims adjusters.