Torts II - I. Joint Tortfeasors a. Whenever you have...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
I. Joint Tortfeasors a. Whenever you have multiple tortfeasors, consider whether they will be jointly and severally liable. i. General Rule: If more than one person is an actual and proximate cause of P’s harm, and the harm is indivisible, each D is liable for the entire harm. ii. Often Tested Issue: “Was the harm to P indivisible?” If not, there is no joint and several liability. 1. Ex: D1 and D2 shoot at P. D1 hits P in the leg, D2 hits him in the eye. If we can apportion the harm, including pain and suffering – which we can do here – then there’s no joint and several liability; each D pays only for the harm he himself caused. iii. If joint and several liability applies, then P can collect the entire amount from whichever single D he wishes. Alternatively, he may collect some from each, with the limitation of one total satisfaction. iv. Two common contexts for joint and several liability: 1. Employer/employee- each is jointly and severally liable (the employer on a “vicarious liability” theory.) 2. Where a dangerous product injures the consumer, both the manufacturer and the retailer will be jointly and severally liable if P recovers in strict product liability. v. Very often tested: The interaction between traditional joint and several liability and comparative negligence. 1. If there is no statute dealing specifically with this interaction, then joint and several liability persists as to that portion of the total fault that is not the P’s. a. Ex: P has total, indivisible, injuries of $100,000. The jury finds that P was 30% at fault, D1 was 50% at fault and D2 20%. The jurisdiction has a comparative negligence statute, but no statute addressing joint and several liability. P can only collect $70,000, which he can collect all from D1, all from D2, or a mix. 2. Some states now have special statutes limiting joint and several liability in connection with comparative negligence. If your facts are silent about whether such a statute is in force, you might want to give the traditional analysis as in the prior paragraph, and then speculate. a. Ex: But the state may have a statute, as a number of states do now, abolishing joint and several liability for any D found to be less than 50% at fault for the accident. b. Whenever you have multiple tortfeasors, consider whether one has the right to contribution from the other(s). Contribution is a cost-sharing in favor of one who has paid more than his proportionate share of the total liability. i. Under classic common law contribution, the court makes each D pay an equal net amount. 1. Ex: D1 and D2 are found jointly and severally liable for P’s $100,000 injuries. P collects $70,000 from D1 and $30,000 from
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
D2. Under the common law approach, D1 can get contribution of $20,000 from D2, since this is the amount needed to equalize their shares. ii.
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 05/01/2008 for the course LAW 803 taught by Professor Williams during the Spring '08 term at University of Louisville.

Page1 / 20

Torts II - I. Joint Tortfeasors a. Whenever you have...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online