Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

 joint & several liability  contribution & indemnity  satisfaction & discharge  releases  apportionment  Relationship to comparative fault.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: " joint & several liability  contribution & indemnity  satisfaction & discharge  releases  apportionment  Relationship to comparative fault."— Presentation transcript:

1  joint & several liability  contribution & indemnity  satisfaction & discharge  releases  apportionment  Relationship to comparative fault

2 General rule of Joint & Several Liability? – Each D is jointly liable with all other Ds for all damages and each D is also individually liable for full amount: P can get compensation from any one or all as group(rule favoring P’s full compensation) Basis for joint liability (when does it apply) – 1 st  Ds act in concert to create “joint risk” (see note 5, p. 363) – 2 nd  Note 7: Failure to perform common or shared duty e.g. elevator falls (landlord/ tenant/ repair co.)…may include vicarious liability relationships (e.g., partners) – 3 rd  Note 8 : Independent acts of negligence combine to create indivisible injury (not capable of apportionment) distinguish from procedural “joinder” of parties and claims (see note 3, p. 362)

3 Bierczynski v. Rogers Basis for Joint & Several Liability? Assume: $100,000 in damages  in this case means….what? If Race has no $? If ∏ hates Rodgers and is best bud with Race? Contrast: from “apportionment”  acting independently D1 breaks P’s leg, D2 breaks P’s nose… The evidence shows which D caused what damage…that is, the damages can reasonably be apportioned between them  NB: the D’s act independently…if they act in concert?

4 Comparative fault  accounting for contributory negligence of P by reducing damages by percentage of fault If Jury must assess relative fault of P why not also for other defendants? – D1: 60% fault, D2: 30% fault, P: 10% fault Any effect on J & S liability? – Arguments for and against eliminating J & S – Key policy problem: Risk of missing or impecunious D Florida?  figure it out based on statute

5 General Rule? – Recovery from any or all- but only one satisfaction of claim Bundt v. Embro What is the “one satisfaction ” mean? – Settlement? – Multiple judgments? Partial Satisfaction- Note #4 -must credit other ∆’s Collateral Sources- Note # 4

6 Common law rule : – Release one of J.T. releases all What is a “release ”? – Legal effect?  Surrenders ∏’s claim – Distinct from “satisfaction”? How is “covenant not to sue ” different? – K’tual promise not to sue which does not technically release claim against D Modern approach Mary Carter Agreements

7 Common Law Rules on Contribution – Ds may seek contribution from other Ds who paid less than their share…which is? – Traditional Rule for dividing damages among joint ∆’s : if there are 4 ∆s & 100,000 judgments? pro rata apportionment b/w Ds J & S  who pays what to P versus Contribution  how D’s divide up…between Ds What if a state eliminates J & S? Effect on contribution?

8 What if ∆1 settles for $1000 but later Judgment against ∆2 for $100,000? Can ∆2 seek contribution from ∆1? If so, why would ∆1 settle? What if D1 settles for $100,000? Can he seek contributions for other non-settling Ds? Knell v. Feltman: when can D seek contribution …? – what if P doesn’t sue D2? – C/L rule against Contribution among joint tortfeasors…intentional torts Under Fla. Law ?  768.31 (2)(d) and (5)(b)? Yellow Cab (immune D)

9  Distinct from Contribution in that entire liability of D …is shifted to actual tortfeasor (or by K’tual promise)  Why?  Liability imposed by law/relationship e.g. vicarious, dangerous instrumentally, innocent partner


Download ppt " joint & several liability  contribution & indemnity  satisfaction & discharge  releases  apportionment  Relationship to comparative fault."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google