Personal Injury Law

Leading Tennessee Tort Cases - Comparative Fault - Abolition of Joint and Several Liability as General Rule

By John Day

This is one of a series of posts that will excerpt sections from the third edition of my book, Day on Torts: Leading Tennessee Tort Cases.  To order the book go here.

§ 15.1     Abolition of Joint and Several Liability As General Rule

The Case: McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).

The Basic Facts: A car accident case – both drivers had consumed alcohol the evening of the accident. 

The Bottom Line: 

• 'Third, today's holding [adopting modified comparative fault] renders the doctrine of joint and several liability obsolete. Our adoption of comparative fault is due largely to considerations of fairness: the contributory negligence doctrine unjustly allowed the entire loss to be borne by a negligent plaintiff, notwithstanding that the plaintiff's fault was minor in comparison to the defendant's. Having thus adopted a rule more closely linking liability and fault, it would be inconsistent to simultaneously retain a rule, joint and several liability, which may fortuitously impose a degree of liability that is out of all proportion to fault.'

             833 S.W.2d at 57-58 (footnote omitted).

 Other Sources of Note: When a defendant is found to have a duty to prevent another from committing an intentional wrong, Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001), and joint and several liability survives in cases involving conspiracy, Resolution Trust Corp. v. Block, 924 S.W.2d 354 (Tenn. 1996). A finding of strict liability in a products liability case has the effect of joint and several liability insofar as the liability of the person who manufactured the product is concerned. See Owens v. Truckstops of America, 915 S.W.2d 420 (Tenn. 1996).

Full post as published by Day on Torts on July 14, 2010 (boomark / email).