1 / 10

Comparative Fault

The Simplest C-fault Case. Use the facts of Prob. 24 (431). But simplify.Geyer =$10,000 harmMoreland = noneP (Geyer) sues D (Moreland) D (Moreland) claims that P (Geyer) was at fault, too. . . If the jury allocates fault as follows, what judgment will court give to Geyer?1. D=100% at fault

nishan
Download Presentation

Comparative Fault

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


    1. Comparative Fault

    2. The Simplest C-fault Case Use the facts of Prob. 24 (431). But simplify. Geyer =$10,000 harm Moreland = none P (Geyer) sues D (Moreland) D (Moreland) claims that P (Geyer) was at fault, too.

    3. If the jury allocates fault as follows, what judgment will court give to Geyer? 1. D=100% at fault? $10,000 2. P=100% at fault? 0 3. P = 30%; D = 70%? $7,000 [NEW with c-fault] NOW A NEGLIGENCE P CAN RECOVER. QUARE: what implications for doctrines that assumed an INNOCENT P? 1. J&S (as between innocent P and negl Ds, let Ds fight out who pays what to P) q: get rid of J&S and make each D pay her % only? Only keep j&s, but only for combined D%? 2. Alt liability (as between 2 or more negligent Ds and innocent P, let them prove selves out or be j&s liable) Heck, P is now equally culpable and in fact could be causally more responsible than the D whose bullet never hit P.) 3. Concurrrent causation, too. Not worked out yet in most settings. Well look at J&S in this chapter.NOW A NEGLIGENCE P CAN RECOVER. QUARE: what implications for doctrines that assumed an INNOCENT P? 1. J&S (as between innocent P and negl Ds, let Ds fight out who pays what to P) q: get rid of J&S and make each D pay her % only? Only keep j&s, but only for combined D%? 2. Alt liability (as between 2 or more negligent Ds and innocent P, let them prove selves out or be j&s liable) Heck, P is now equally culpable and in fact could be causally more responsible than the D whose bullet never hit P.) 3. Concurrrent causation, too. Not worked out yet in most settings. Well look at J&S in this chapter.

    4. 4. P = 70%; D = 30%? Under purec-fault (UCFA & Missouri)? $3,000 Modified comparative fault? $0 why adopt modified comparative fault? 5. P = 50%; D = 50%? Pure? $5,000 Modified? in states that bar P if his fault exceeds Ds, G=$5,000 in states that bar P if his fault equals or exceeds Ds, G=$0. MODIFIED: fairness: just as negligent as D could be 99-1 or 90-10. Ds argument in pure states to avoid any liability? P=SUPERCEDING PROX. CAUSE. (emerging cases; 33(3) Loyola of LA Lrev. 887 (2000))MODIFIED: fairness: just as negligent as D could be 99-1 or 90-10. Ds argument in pure states to avoid any liability? P=SUPERCEDING PROX. CAUSE. (emerging cases; 33(3) Loyola of LA Lrev. 887 (2000))

    5. Counterclaims Now assume that Moreland (D) counterclaims for $3,000 damage to his car. What result if the jury finds: 1. P(Geyer) = 100% at fault? P (Geyer) is awarded $0 D (Moreland) gets verdict for $3,000 2. D (Moreland) = 100% at fault? P = $10,000; D = $0 NOTE: Geyer is actually the DEF on the counterclaim.NOTE: Geyer is actually the DEF on the counterclaim.

    6. Counterclaim: both at fault 1. P = 30%; D= 70% if Pure c-f (UCFA)? P = $7,000 (10,000 x 70%) D = $900 ($3,000 x 30%) Does Geyer get $6,100 or $7,000? if Modified c-f? (recall Idaho, p. 140) P= $7,000 D = $0 because 70%>30% 2. P = 60%, D = 40%? 3. P = 50%; D = 50% PURE: ucfa; Missouri; most court adoptoins MODD: many legis. Adoptions. #2: Pure: P +4,000; D = 1800 modifd: P=barred bc 60%>40% D= 1,800 #3: pure = 50% each. Modf (exceeds) = same Modd(equals) = neither recover!PURE: ucfa; Missouri; most court adoptoins MODD: many legis. Adoptions. #2: Pure: P +4,000; D = 1800 modifd: P=barred bc 60%>40% D= 1,800 #3: pure = 50% each. Modf (exceeds) = same Modd(equals) = neither recover!

    7. Multiple Defendants Assume that Geyer sues BOTH South End and Moreland. No counterclaim by Moreland do that variation on your own!

    8. P=10%; Moreland = 30%; SE = 60%. What judgment will P get against Moreland? if joint and several liability? $90,000 judgment against each D. How much contribution can M get from SE? if proportional per UCFA & jud. trend = 60%($6,000) if pro rata (e.g., MO contrib. Statute) =1/2($4,500)

    9. if several liability, like Utah? M = $3,000; SE = $6,000 any contribution from M by SE? No why adopt several liability?? What if M is insolvent? if modified j & s? states vary example (MO malpractice): (D is jointly liable only for equal or less liable Ds). Judgment here? P gets award of $3,000 against M award against SE? judgment of $9,000 SEVERAL LIABILITY? No longer an innocent P, so less reason to favor P over the solvent Ds. IF M = INSOLVENT? Loss is born by P (who is no longer innocent? Unfair if D is more culpable? See UCFA) MODIFIED J&S: Missouri malpractice reform statute is like this\ Idaho? (p.140) several liability (with a few exceptions) SEVERAL LIABILITY? No longer an innocent P, so less reason to favor P over the solvent Ds. IF M = INSOLVENT? Loss is born by P (who is no longer innocent? Unfair if D is more culpable? See UCFA) MODIFIED J&S: Missouri malpractice reform statute is like this\ Idaho? (p.140) several liability (with a few exceptions)

    10. Multiple Ds--The Unit Rule P = 40%; Moreland = 20%; SE = 40% P is entitled to what judgment against SE? Pure with j & s? $6,000 Pure with several only? $4,000

    11. Modified c-f with j & s? if Unit rule (maj), compare P to total % assigned to all Ds: P= $6,000 from SE if no unit rule, then compare P to each D in exceeds bar states, P gets $6,000 from SE but none from M bc Ps fault exceeds Ms if state bars equally culpable P, P gets none from SE or M. Modified c-f with several liability? with unit rule, $4,000 from SE; 2,000 from M if no unit rule, under exceeds bar, $4,000 from SE ($0 from M) under equals bar, none from either D.

More Related