The Court held that the rationale of Hoffman v. Jones dictated the elimination of the rule against contribution among joint tortfeasors. Thereafter, a faultless plaintiff obtained a verdict in which the jury determined that one defendant was 85% percent negligent and the other defendant was 15% negligent. The negligence attributed to the defendants will then be apportioned on a pro rata basis without considering relative degrees of fault although the multiparty defendants will remain jointly and severally liable for the entire amount. The real issue before us is whether we should replace the doctrine of joint and several liability with one in which the liability of codefendants to the plaintiff is apportioned according to each defendant’s respective fault. According to Disney, this Court in Hoffman set for itself the goal of creating a tort system that fairly and equitably allocated damages.
Plaintiffs now take the parties as they find them. This Court may alter a rule of law where great social upheaval dictates its necessity. The majority of courts that have faced the issue in jurisdictions with comparative negligence have ruled that joint and several liability should be retained. E.g., Arctic Structures, Inc. v Wedmore, 605 P.2d 426 (Alaska 1979). A concurrent tortfeasor is liable for the whole of an indivisible injury when his negligence is a proximate cause of that damage. Even in cases where a plaintiff is partially at fault, his culpability is not equivalent to that of a defendant.
The case Amador v. Gun and Walmart Stores, East, involves a slip-and-fall injury and the duties and responsibilities that owners and operators have to people they invite onto their premises. The owner or operator of the premises must protect invitees against harmful conditions on the premises. If an owner/ operator does not follow these duties, they can be subject to liability. Amador fell in a Walmart bathroom while helping her mother use the restroom. Amador sued Walmart for pain and suffering and past and future medical expenses.
Walmart argued that Amador should have been aware of the danger of a wet bathroom floor after being mopped. The jury found that Walmart had breached its duty to Amador by failing to take adequate measures to prevent and warn against the harm posed by the wet bathroom floor. After deliberation, the jury awarded Amador $900,000 for pain and suffering and past and future medical expenses. The experienced attorneys at The Watson Firm are familiar with these tactics and can help you navigate them to achieve the best result.
References
Firm, T. W. (2022). Walmart slip-and-fall premises liability case ends in $900,000 award. The Watson Firm, PLLC. Web.
Walt Disney World Co. v. Wood. Justia Law. (n.d.). Web.