to be liable then in a contribution action the who gave in their opinion too

To be liable then in a contribution action the who

This preview shows page 46 - 48 out of 81 pages.

to be liable; then in a contribution action, the ∆ who gave, in their opinion, too much bc of π’s redress actions, can go after the other ∆ & get the apportionment of fault. Several-Only Liability : π can only recover from each ∆ based on their % fault. o Potential Problem: ∆ is insolvent or unreachable. o JSL allocates the risk to solvent and reachable ∆s. o Several-only allocates risk to π: she can only recover the damages that reachable ∆s are responsible for. o Who should bare the risk? Should missing damages be allocated to ∆’s based on a pro-rata basis, or can we allocate according to % fault? Some state (NJ) hold not parties are not included, while others (NH) do consider the fault of non- parties. RULE: The US may be held vicariously liable where a member of the armed services becomes intoxicated on base premises and causes injury offsite. Character Activity Test : “ scope of employment” Is the risk was one that may be fairly regarded as typical of or broadly incidental to the enterprise undertaken by the employer.” o if the risk is foreseeable to the employer, if endorsed by express or implied permission o if activities have become “a customary incident of the employment relationship” o met whenever broad potential effects on morale and customer relations exist 46
Image of page 46
Ravo v. Rogatnick (N.Y. 1987) YES JOINTLY & SEVERALLY LIABLE P retardation and disability was caused by the concurrent negligence of Dr.s Rogatnick and Harris. Dr. R’s malpractice was at birth, Dr. H misdiagnosed. H filed motion saying his fault was not jointly & severally liable but independent & successive When multiple tortfeasors neither act in concert nor contribute concurrently to the same wrong not joint tortfeasors, rather they are independent and successive wrongs When two or more tortfeasors act concurrently or in concert to produce a single injury, they maybe held joint and severally liable Holding: R=80% at fault and H=20% at fault. The injury is indivisible b/c it is impossible to say whose carelessness caused which “part” of the injury. Joint and several liability for an indivisible injury survives. Joint and Severally Liable vs. Successive Liability : When ∆’s are jointly & severally liable, a π can recover the entire judgment amount from ∆ with means even if that ∆ was not 100% at fault. Independent and successive liability means a π can only collect the apportioned judgment from each ∆. Bencivenga v. JJAMM (N.J. 1992) YES JOINTLY & SEVERALLY LIABLE Π punched in the nose by club’s bouncers & π was punched in the nose by mystery assailant at ∆’s club; brings suit against ∆ and “John Doe” other ∆’s wouldn’t name. Should the jury be allowed to assign fault to Doe?
Image of page 47
Image of page 48

You've reached the end of your free preview.

Want to read all 81 pages?

  • Fall '11
  • Dolin
  • Tort Law, duty, reasonable care, licensee

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture