100%(1)1 out of 1 people found this document helpful
This preview shows page 24 - 25 out of 36 pages.
Partial indemnification: any ∆ is joint & severally liable for π’s entire harm. π can recover her damages from any party but those ∆’s can seek partial indemnification from other ∆’s from their share of the faultoHere, AMA can seek partial indemnity from π’s parents on a comparative fault basisoIndemnification shifts the entire cost of damages from one party to anotherHappens when ∆ is more at fault (ex: 51%)oContribution: divide damages between ∆’s based on their degree of faultCommon law doesn’t recognize actions for contribution for joint & severally ∆’s b/c standard principles for “all or nothing” still apply. Why try to calculate damages based on ∆’s fault b/c ∆ was wrong, so ∆ should be fully liable -If ∆ is insolvent, the remaining ∆’s split the insolvent’s portion comparatively based on their % of fault. If πis CN, then ∆’s & π split insolvent party’s share comparativelyoIf ∆ does intentional tort, then not split w/ π b/c CN is not a defense H.CAUSATION1.Cause-In-Fact -Must ask but for ∆’s breach of duty, would π still have suffered harm?oImagine that ∆ did act w/ reasonable care would π still be alive? What would have happened hadthe ∆ not breached his duty & complied w/ his obligations? [counterfactual thinking]oDid ∆’s activity cause π harm? Yes or no answer-It’s a condition, act, or object that caused π’s injuries or increased the risk of harm to π-Factual cause must be a necessary condition for the outcome oNeeds to be a cause of the person’s harm, not the proximate cause -π must be able to establish that more probably than not, the outcome would’ve been different -When not a cause of π’s harm, π doesn’t recover, even if breached dutyWhere ∆ owes a duty & ∆ breaches that duty but causation is not established as a part of π’s prima facie case, ∆ is not liableNew York Central R.R. v. Grimstad: Grimstad was employed as captain on a barge owned by D. π & wife were on barge when tugboat bumped into it. Wife came & saw π in water who didn’t know how to swim. When she came back from getting a line, he drowned. Wife sued ∆ for negligently failing to equip barge w/ life vests & buoys & claimed lack of life preservers caused π’s death-π’s prima facie caseoDuty ∆ had duty to provide proper/safe boatoBreach ∆ breached his duty b/c he didn’t provide life preserversoCausation Not met here, so ∆ is not liable-Even if ∆ complied w/ duty & provided equipment, no certainty that buoys would have saved π (pure speculation) Kirincich v. Standard:Deceased fell off dredge close to shore & was carried away when shipmates tried to save himw/ inadequate lifesaving equipment. -Court held no way to be certain if having proper lifesaving equipment would have saved P. If they hadbuoys, P may have grabbed on→ based on if a reasonable man who is drowning would have been saved ifthere was proper lifesaving equipment Reynoldsv. Texas & Pacific Ry.:P, 250-lb woman, fell down unlighted steps leading to train platform.