Joint Liability Flashcards
JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY RULE + RELATED CASE
RULE: Under joint and several liability, two or more defendants each of whose negligent conduct was a proximate cause (jointly or concurrently) of an indivisible injury to P, are each liable for entire harm to P.
1. Acting in concert
2. Where D has a common duty to P (example vicarious liability)
3. Independently breaches combined, produces an indivisible injury.
DRAG RACING CASE
SATISFACTION RULE
RULE: Under J+S lability, P can sue D co-tortfeasor in separate courts but, if P collects “satisfaction” from 1+Ds in one court, it cannot collect against the others.
WHEN IS SATISFACTION SATISFIED?
is receiving full compensation for the injury, based either on the plaintiff’s valuation of the case (settlement) or the jury’s (verdict). A plaintiff’s claim is satisfied when the judgment is actually paid after the trial or when a settlement reflecting the full amount of plaintiff’s claim is actually paid. A plaintiff may receive only one satisfaction for an injury.
RELEASE + RELATED CASE
P may settle claim(s) against some (but for all) D co-tortfeasors and still pursue J+S liability from non-settling D co-tortfeasor for 100% of damages, but only if the settlement agreement (covenant not to sue) expressly reserves the P’s right to do so.
If no such reservation, P’s Settlement constitutes “release” of remaining Ds, extinguishing P’s claim against them.
GOODWILL SLIP AND FALL CASE
A Mary Carter agreement + related case
1+ D co-tortfeasor money settling w/P while remaining active in P’s case against non-settling D co-tortfeasors in exchange for X (eg. Information or witness sharing, full/partial reimbursement of settlement paid from judgement against non-settling D.)
Majority of jurisdictions at least partially enforce “Mary Carter” agreements—but only if they are disclosed to the court and non-settling parties.
MARY CARTER AGREEMENT CASE
CONTRIBUTION AND IMDENNITY
A D1 co-tortfeasor who pays more than its % share of fault for P’s injuries has a right of contribution against remaining co-tortfeasors, such that D1 may recover from D2, D3 etc. in proportion to the other D’s % of fault.
Contribution may be asserted by D via impleader (3rd party complaint) joining multiple D co-tortfeasors in P’s initial case OR in a later case if remaining co-tortfeasors were not joined as party in initial case.
Is up to the jury on how to allocate the percentage fault.
If P settles with one co-tortfeasor (D1), the $$$ amount of D1’s payout is deducted from any later damages assessed against D2, D3, etc.;
And later Ds can NOT claim pro rata contribution from D1 UNLESS prior settlement was “collusive” / made in “bad faith;”
FAILURE TO ACT GENERAL RULE + CASE EXAMPLE
GENERAL RULE: An actor ordinarily has a duty to exercise reasonable care when the actor’s conduct crates a risk of physical harm.
NOTE: In exceptional cases, when principle or policy warrants denying or limiting liability in a particular class of cases, a court may decide that the D has no duty or that the ordinary duty of reasonable care requires modification.
TORT LAW: does NOT recognize a duty to affirmatively act to prevent, protect, aid, or warn a P who suffers – or is threatened with - harm/injury caused by a 3rd party; unless one of the 4 exceptions apply.
EXCEPTIONS to general rule of duty to act
- CAUSED/INCREASED PHYSICAL HARM
- ASSUMES DUTY
- SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO VICTIM
- SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO PERPETRATOR
CAUSED/INCREASED PHYSICAL HARM RULE + RELATED CASE
Duty to act ALSO exist when D’s non-negligent conduct causes/increases risk of danger or injury to P, such as when an instrumentality causing further injury is in their control.
CHILD IN THE ESCALATOR CASE
CAUSED/INCREASED PHYSICAL HARM RULE + RELATED CASE
Duty to act ALSO exist when D’s non-negligent conduct causes/increases risk of danger or injury to P, such as when an instrumentality causing further injury is in their control.
CHILD IN THE ESCALATOR CASE
ASSUMES DUTY
A D who voluntarily attempts to aid / rescue P must act w/reasonable care (or at least w/out “gross negligence”).
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH VICTIM + CASE
If D has special relationship with P victim, may owe duty to acT.
BUT Even if a “special relationship” to P creates some duty to act that duty is highly dependent on whether that harm is w/in scope of duties and functions of that relationship.
WAYWARD COLLEGE STUDENT CASE
SPECIAL RELATIONSHIP TO PERPETRATOR + CASE
Duty to act may ALSO exist if D has special knowledge + relationship with 3rd party perpetrator such that they are positioned to prevent and/or control perpetrator from harming P.
WIFE’S FAILURE TO WARN CASE
NIED RULE + related case
If D negligently causes P’s immediate physical injuries, P can recover for emotional damages a result of the those injuries.
now, a majority of states also extent liability for NIED, even in absent of an immediate physical injury, where P shows that D’s negligence put P in the zone of physical danger and P later suffered definite and objective injury as a result of ED caused by D’s negligent conduct.
CASE: EXPLODING POWER LINES CASE
CAN P RECOVER FOR NIED CAUSED BY PHYSICAL INJURY OF 3RD PARTY? BYSTANDER NIED RULE + ALIGATOR WRESTLING HYPO
- P may also recover for NIED caused by physical injury of 3rd party (i.e., bystander NIED) but ONLY IF:
(1) P is “close relative” of 3rd party;
(2) P is present at the scene of injury and contemporaneously perceives it;
(3) P suffers SED; and
(4) D’s conduct was proximate cause of P’s SED.
