Consider the general premise that it is the role of the legislature to make the law, and that it is the role of the courts to interpret the law. In the Hoffman v Jones case, do you believe that the court was interpreting existing law, or were they making new law? Should the establishment of comparative fault as the prevailing law in Florida have been made by the Florida legislature, or by the Florida Supreme Court? Do you agree with the court's decision? Why, or why not?