The application of the Li doctrine in cases involving multiple parties: American Motorcycle Associat - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 11
About This Presentation
Title:

The application of the Li doctrine in cases involving multiple parties: American Motorcycle Associat

Description:

Since Li involved only a single plaintiff and single defendant, its innovation ... vicarious liability (respondeat superior): Imputation of fault based upon ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:62
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 12
Provided by: robertd83
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: The application of the Li doctrine in cases involving multiple parties: American Motorcycle Associat


1
The application of the Li doctrine in cases
involving multiple parties American Motorcycle
Association v. Superior Court (California Supreme
Court, en banc, 1978)
  • Since Li involved only a single plaintiff and
    single defendant, its innovation of a comparative
    fault principle resulted simply in an allocation
    of fault between the plaintiff and defendant,
    proportionately diminishing plaintiffs recovery
    (damages) to reflect the defendants contribution
    to plaintiffs injuries
  • The Court specifically reserved ruling on the
    issue of the application of the comparative fault
    principle in cases involving multiple parties

2
The facts
  • Gregos, a teenager, was permanently paralyzed as
    a result of a motorcycle accident during an event
    sanctioned, and conducted by The Viking
    Motorcycle Club, and the American Motorcycle
    Association
  • He filed a civil action against both
    associations, seeking damages, and alleged that
    the negligence of defendants in designing,
    managing and supervising the race were the
    proximate cause of his injuries
  • Defendants alleged as an affirmative defense that
    Gregos parents were negligent in their
    supervision of their son, and expressly consented
    to his participation in the event with actual
    knowledge of the extent of his training in the
    operation of a motorcycle
  • Defendants sought pursuant to the California
    Code of Civil Procedure to file a
    cross-complaint, seeking indemnification from
    Gregos parents

3
History The origin of the principle of joint
several liability
  • Under common law principles, where two or more
    negligent parties cause an indivisible injury,
    they are jointly and severally liable to the
    injured party for the amount of his damages.
    Plaintiff is not required to prove that either
    tortfeasors conduct was the sole proximate cause
    of his injury
  • The principle had its earliest recognition in
    cases where two or more parties acted in concert
    reflecting the conception that all participants
    in a conspiracy or partnership were equally
    responsible for the acts of each member

4
Other early applications of the original theory
of joint several liability
  • The emergence of the doctrine of vicarious
    liability (respondeat superior) Imputation of
    fault based upon relationship or control
    (principal-agent employer-employee) when the
    agent or employees negligent act or omission
    occurred within the scope of the relationship,
    e.g., within the scope of employment (a topic to
    be expanded upon in the course on Agency)
  • Application of the doctrine in cases involving
    joint owners of property who have a common duty
    toward third parties

5
A new innovation of the doctrine after Li
  • The abatement of the all or nothing aspect of
    the contributory negligence doctrine to
    ameliorate its inequitable consequences to
    plaintiff does not suggest the abatement of the
    principle of joint and several liability
  • Even after Li, each negligent party whose conduct
    is a proximate cause of an indivisible injury to
    plaintiff should logically remain individually
    responsible to plaintiff for that injury

6
Innovation of the rule as to the right of
indemnity or contribution
  • Prior to Li, in a case involving multiple
    tortfeasors, the allocation of damages among
    defendants was accomplished by applying a rule of
    contribution or indemnity
  • Indemnity was concerned with the question whether
    the liability of one negligent defendant should
    be shifted entirely to another negligent
    defendant (The doctrine had its most popular
    application in cases involving a so-called
    passive tortfeasor and a so-called active
    tortfeasor)
  • The more modern principle of contribution
    suggests the sharing of liability (for
    plaintiffs loss) between or among multiple
    tortfeasors in the nature of an equitable
    indemnity doctrine

7
Equitable apportionment of liability and the
recognition of comparative indemnity
  • Li introduces the concept of apportionment of
    liability, previously unrecognized by California
    common law
  • This concept of apportionment of liability
    suggests that
  • When plaintiffs injury remains indivisible, each
    defendant whose negligence is a proximate cause
    of that injury remains responsible to plaintiff
    because it is not possible to determine whether a
    particular defendants negligence would have
    caused the injury thus no defendant has an
    equitable claim to be relieved of his
    responsibility to plaintiff
  • This is logical, and sound from a policy
    standpoint even where plaintiff is himself
    negligent, because plaintiffs duty is to use
    reasonable care for his own protection, while
    defendants negligence represents a lack of due
    care for the safety of others however,
  • The principles of equity which underlie the
    comparative fault rule support the recognition of
    a rule of partial or comparative indemnity,
    allowing for the filing of a cross-complaint by
    a named/joined defendant against previously
    unjoined alleged tortfeasors (tortfeasors not
    joined by plaintiff in his complaint)
  • The failure to recognize such a rule would
    prejudice the ability of injured parties to
    recover adequate compensation for their loss

8
The rule as applied
  • On remand, under the principle announced, the
    American Motorcycle Association may file a
    cross-complaint joining Gregos parents under the
    California Code of Civil Procedure, and alleging
    entitlement to partial indemnification from them
  • AMA must allege and prove that Gregos parents
    were negligent in their supervision of their son,
    and that their negligence was a proximate cause
    of his injuries
  • If it is proven that they were negligent, AMA
    will be entitled to comparative indemnity

9
The dissent
  • Justice Clark argued that the principle of
    comparative fault announced in Li is not properly
    reflected in the majoritys holding
  • To illustrate
  • In a case where a plaintiff is 30 at fault, and
    defendants are respectively 60 and 10 at fault,
    plaintiff could recover 70 of his damages from
    the defendant who is only 10 at fault if the
    more culpable defendant is unable to pay
  • In the same case, plaintiff could be encouraged
    to settle for a lesser amount with the defendant
    who is 60 at fault (if he has some ability to
    pay), and recover from the less culpable
    defendant all damages up to 70 - not recovered
    from the defendant who settles such an
    application of the rule to settlements unfairly
    pressures the less culpable defendant to offer a
    settlement in excess of his real share of
    liability
  • The rule as announced is based on the equities
    which exist in cases involving truly innocent
    plaintiffs and does not include a true
    consideration of cases involving plaintiffs who
    are, in fact, at fault

10
Notes and commentary on the rule
  • Some jurisdictions describe the rule as one of
    comparative contribution, rather than comparative
    indemnity, suggesting the apportionment of fault
    principle
  • In some jurisdictions, a defendant may be subject
    to liability for the share of plaintiffs damages
    attributable to another defendant, only if that
    defendant is unable to pay damages
  • California, by statute and other jurisdictions
    have modified the instant case to apply the
    rule to allow for joint and several liability
    only for economic damages (e.g., lost income,
    medical expenses), and not to non-economic
    damages (e.g., pain suffering, loss of
    consortium)
  • In some jurisdictions, plaintiff is obliged to
    join any and all defendants who are responsible
    for his injury in such jurisdictions,
    plaintiffs damages may ultimately be reduced by
    any amount attributable to a defendant who is not
    joined
  • Restatement of Torts (Third), Apportionment of
    Liability endorses a principle of comparative
    contribution, even in intentional tort cases
  • - See R.3d, Apportionment of Liability,
    Section 1, Comment C

11
The policy debate
  • The continued evolution of the principle of joint
    and several liability in the post-Li era is
    influenced by the competing questions whether the
    rule
  • Is necessary to provide full and fair recovery to
    persons injured as a result of the negligence of
    others, or
  • Unfairly supports the disproportionate liability
    of so-called deep pocket defendants
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com