​

I. Joint & Several Liability and Comparative Fault (Review)

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Joint and Several Liability: When multiple defendants act in concert (concert of action), the Plaintiff can recover the full amount of damages from any of the joint tortfeasors, regardless of their individual percentage of fault.
  • Essence: The Plaintiff can collect the full amount from either defendant.
• Absence of Concert (Comparative Fault): If defendants are not acting in concert, Joint and Several Liability does not apply. Instead, damages are apportioned based on Comparative Fault.
  • The jury determines the percentage of fault for each defendant.
  • A defendant is only liable for the damages corresponding to their specific percentage of fault.

​

2. Hypotheticals & Examples

• The Drag Racing Hypo (Concert of Action):
  • Scenario: Two drivers drag race. One hits Plaintiff (P), causing $100k damages. The other driver did not hit P.
  • Outcome: Because they acted in concert (common goal/unison of action), they are Jointly and Severally liable. P can recover the full $100k from the driver who did not hit him.
• The Bankruptcy Hypo (No Concert):
  • Scenario: D1 (5% fault), D2 (20% fault), and D3 (75% fault) cause $100k in damages but are not acting in concert. D2 and D3 are bankrupt (not amenable to lawsuit).
  • Outcome: P can only recover $5,000 from D1. D1 is not liable for the shares of D2 and D3 because there is no Joint and Several liability.
  • Contrast: If they were acting in concert, P could recover the full $100k from D1 (the 5% fault defendant).

​

3. Key Cases

• Case Name: Coney
  • Facts: Plaintiff killed by a hydraulic platform. Sued manufacturer (defect) and employer (failure to train).
  • Holding: The manufacturer and employer were not acting in concert (no joint plan). Therefore, distinct acts of negligence contributed to the injury, distinguishing it from true “concert of action” cases.

​

II. Causation (Clarification)

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Single Defendant: Use the “But-For” Test. (But for D’s conduct, P would not have been injured) .
• Concurrent Causes: Two or more defendants’ negligence combine to cause injury, where neither act alone was sufficient.
  • Test: Use the “But-For” Test. (e.g., But for the buggy having no lights, the accident would not have happened).
• Joint Causes: Two or more causes come together, and either would have been sufficient to cause the injury.
  • Test: Use the Substantial Factor Test. The “But-For” test fails here.
• Alternative Causes: Two defendants act negligently, but P cannot prove which one caused the injury (e.g., Summers v. Tice).
  • Test: The court shifts the burden of proof to the defendants to absolve themselves. If they cannot, they are liable.

​

III. Contribution

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: Contribution is a device whereby responsibility for payment is apportioned among those at fault.
• Rule: Any joint tortfeasor who pays more than his share of Plaintiff’s damages may seek contribution (partial reimbursement) from other tortfeasors [cite: 442-446].
• Prerequisite: This generally applies when Joint and Several Liability exists. If liability is already apportioned by percentage (comparative fault without J&S), contribution is unnecessary because a defendant never pays more than their specific share.
• Third-Party Claims: A defendant’s right to contribution is not barred by the Plaintiff’s choice of defendants. A defendant can file a third-party complaint (cross-complaint) against an unnamed tortfeasor to seek contribution.

​

2. Key Cases

• Case Name: Knell
  • Facts: Collision between a car (driven by Nell) and a Taxicab. Passenger sued the Taxi. Taxi filed a third-party complaint against Nell.
  • Holding: A right to contribution exists against a joint tortfeasor even if the Plaintiff chose not to sue that specific tortfeasor.
• Case Name: Yellow Cab
  • Facts: Taxi collided with a car driven by Mrs. Dreslin’s husband. Mrs. Dreslin sued Taxi. Taxi sought contribution from the husband. Husband claimed “intra-family immunity.”
  • Holding: Contribution allowed. Immunity (which is now largely obsolete) did not bar the third-party claim for contribution based on concurrent negligence.
• Case Name: Slocum
  • Facts: Driver backed over a child and was sued. Driver sought contribution/indemnity from Ford (manufacturer). Ford settled with Plaintiff.
  • Holding: Under the specific state statute (MA), a defendant who settles with the Plaintiff is exempt from contribution claims by non-settling defendants.

​

IV. Indemnity

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: Indemnity involves shifting the entire loss from one tortfeasor to another (in contrast to contribution, which is partial reimbursement).
• Trigger: Indemnity is typically a function of Contract or Vicarious Liability.
  • Example: A lease agreement often creates an indemnity obligation where the tenant must indemnify the landlord for lawsuits.
  • Example: An employer (like UPS) indemnifying an employee driver for accidents occurring within the scope of employment.

​

V. Satisfaction

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Rule: A Plaintiff may file as many lawsuits against potential defendants as they choose and take them to judgment. However, the Plaintiff may collect only one full satisfaction [cite: 868-873].
• Effect: Once a judgment is fully satisfied (paid) by one defendant, the Plaintiff cannot collect from other defendants to avoid unjust enrichment/double recovery.
• Procedure: A debtor should obtain a notarized Satisfaction of Judgment upon payment.

​

2. Key Cases

• Case Name: Bundt
  • Facts: Passengers injured in a collision sued drivers and the State (highway repair). They were awarded damages against the State.
  • Holding: Plaintiff may sue multiple parties but is limited to one full satisfaction of the judgment.

​

VI. Release

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: A release is a surrender of the Plaintiff’s cause of action against the party to whom the release is given [cite: 919-920].
• Effect: It legally extinguishes the cause of action (tort, contract, etc.) against that specific party.

​

2. Nuance & Policy

• Unknown Claims (California Civil Code § 1542): In practice, releases often include specific language to waive protections regarding unknown or undiscovered claims. Without this waiver, a general release might not cover injuries discovered after the fact.

​

VII. Apportionment & Aggravation of Injuries

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Aggravation Rule: If a Plaintiff has a pre-existing injury and is involved in a second accident, the new defendant is liable only for the aggravation (exasperation) of the injury, not the original injury [cite: 1091-1093].
• Burden of Proof: The burden remains on the Plaintiff to establish which injuries were caused by the specific accident in question.

​

2. Key Cases

• Case Name: Bruckman
  • Facts: Plaintiff injured in 1964. Injured again in 1965, aggravating the first injury.
  • Holding: The defendant in the second accident is responsible only for the injuries they caused (the aggravation), not the entirety of the damages.

​

VIII. Duty (Negligence Prima Facie Element)

​

1. Black Letter Law / Rule

• Definition: The existence of a duty to conform to a specific standard of conduct to protect the Plaintiff against an unreasonable risk of harm.
• Establishment of Duty: There are three primary ways to establish a Duty of Care:
  1. Privity of Contract: A contractual relationship creates a duty (e.g., Attorney-Client).
  2. Statute (Negligence Per Se): Violation of an applicable criminal statute.
     • Effect: Proves existence of duty AND breach.
     • Requirements: Plaintiff must be in the protected class, and the injury must be the particular harm the statute intended to avoid.
  3. Risk Creation (Misfeasance): Engaging in an activity that increases the risk of physical harm toward foreseeable plaintiffs.
• Duty to Rescue: generally, there is no duty to rescue, unless:
  • There is a special relationship.
  • The defendant has the ability to control the means of help (e.g., department store controlling an escalator) [cite: 1408-1411].
• Zone of Danger: The area of increased risk of physical harm. A duty is owed to plaintiffs within this zone.

​

2. Key Cases

• Case Name: Winterbottom v. Wright (1842)
  • Facts: Mail coach driver injured when the coach broke down due to negligent repair by the defendant. Defendant had a contract with the Postmaster General, not the driver.
  • Holding (Common Law - Historical): The driver could not sue the repair shop because there was no privity of contract. At common law, privity was the only way to establish duty.
• Case Name: MacPherson v. Buick (1916)
  • Facts: Plaintiff bought a Buick from a dealer. A wooden wheel crumbled, causing injury. Plaintiff sued the manufacturer (Buick).
  • Holding: Cardozo rejected the strict privity requirement. Established that placing a dangerous/defective product into the stream of commerce creates a duty of care to the ultimate purchaser (foreseeable plaintiff) because it creates a risk of harm.
  • Significance: This created the “Risk Creation/Activity” pathway to finding Duty, moving beyond strict privity.