Q 1. How are comparative negligence numbers calculated by the trial court? How can the jury say that the university is 72% negligent and that Whitlock is 28% negligent? 2. Why is this not an assumption of risk case? 3. Is there any evidence that Whitlock was contributorily negligent? If not, why would the court engage in comparative negligence calculations? 4. Why does the court examine whether there is a "special relationship" created by the student-university relationship? Why does it examine whether there is a "special relationship" created by the relationship of landlord and tenant? 5. What public-policy reasons is there to deny any "special relationship" between the university and its students?