Comparative Fault Calculations

(Study Tips, Dealing With Stress, Maintaining a Social Life, Financial Aid, Internships, Bar Exam, Careers in Law . . . )
jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby jjlaw » Sun Dec 18, 2011 5:53 pm

I'm still kind of confused about comparative fault in torts. How does it work with joint and several liability?

User avatar
Gecko of Doom
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:32 pm

Re: Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby Gecko of Doom » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:01 pm

jjlaw wrote:I'm still kind of confused about comparative fault in torts. How does it work with joint and several liability?

Assuming the jurisdiction is operating under the UCFA:

All those at fault are jointly and severally liable, so the plaintiff can collect the entirety of the award from any of them. A defendant who had to pay more than his share can then seek contribution from the others. If a defendant is insolvent, his share can be spread out among the rest of the defendants.

That's a basic summary, anyway. Not sure if that covers your question, though.

jjlaw
Posts: 299
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 1:43 pm

Re: Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby jjlaw » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:05 pm

Thanks, that sounds vaguely familiar. lol

So, for example, if P is 40% negligent, and D1, D2, and D3 are each 20% negligent, then P can collect 60% from any D in a joint and several liability action?

User avatar
Gecko of Doom
Posts: 415
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2011 8:32 pm

Re: Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby Gecko of Doom » Sun Dec 18, 2011 6:16 pm

jjlaw wrote:Thanks, that sounds vaguely familiar. lol

So, for example, if P is 40% negligent, and D1, D2, and D3 are each 20% negligent, then P can collect 60% from any D in a joint and several liability action?

Yeah, that should be how it works.

Now, some jurisdictions have quirks regarding recovery from defendants who are less than 50% at fault. My professor didn't really get into that, so I'm not sure exactly how it goes. But it might be something to be aware of, depending on the coverage of your class.

ellewoods87
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Jul 17, 2010 12:18 pm

Re: Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby ellewoods87 » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:50 pm

Gecko of Doom wrote:
jjlaw wrote:Thanks, that sounds vaguely familiar. lol

So, for example, if P is 40% negligent, and D1, D2, and D3 are each 20% negligent, then P can collect 60% from any D in a joint and several liability action?

Yeah, that should be how it works.

Now, some jurisdictions have quirks regarding recovery from defendants who are less than 50% at fault. My professor didn't really get into that, so I'm not sure exactly how it goes. But it might be something to be aware of, depending on the coverage of your class.



Not sure if you discussed it, but this is what we covered:

Pure: P allowed to recover even if fault is more than 50%. She recovers for whatever D is responsible for. E.g., P’s fault is 90%, Ds is 10%, P gets 10% of damages
Modified One: P can recover when her negligence is not as great as Ds (less than 50%)
Modified Two: P can recover when her negligence is not greater than Ds (50% or less)

When calculating the modified versions with multiple defendants courts can differ - some combine the Ds negligence (Pro P move) and some hold them independent of each other (Pro D move)

sidhesadie
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2010 4:54 pm

Re: Comparative Fault Calculations

Postby sidhesadie » Sun Dec 18, 2011 8:59 pm

ellewoods87 wrote:
Gecko of Doom wrote:
jjlaw wrote:Thanks, that sounds vaguely familiar. lol

So, for example, if P is 40% negligent, and D1, D2, and D3 are each 20% negligent, then P can collect 60% from any D in a joint and several liability action?

Yeah, that should be how it works.

Now, some jurisdictions have quirks regarding recovery from defendants who are less than 50% at fault. My professor didn't really get into that, so I'm not sure exactly how it goes. But it might be something to be aware of, depending on the coverage of your class.



Not sure if you discussed it, but this is what we covered:

Pure: P allowed to recover even if fault is more than 50%. She recovers for whatever D is responsible for. E.g., P’s fault is 90%, Ds is 10%, P gets 10% of damages
Modified One: P can recover when her negligence is not as great as Ds (less than 50%)
Modified Two: P can recover when her negligence is not greater than Ds (50% or less)

When calculating the modified versions with multiple defendants courts can differ - some combine the Ds negligence (Pro P move) and some hold them independent of each other (Pro D move)



This is what we learned as well.




Return to “Forum for Law School Students”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: splitterfromhell and 6 guests