Considering 'Comparative Fault' In Md.
|
|
- Francis O’Connor’
- 7 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Portfolio Media, Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY Phone: Fax: Considering 'Comparative Fault' In Md. Law360, New York (May 10, 2011) -- In November of 2010, the chief justice of Maryland s highest court, the Maryland Court of Appeals, requested information and advice about the legal doctrine of comparative fault and associated principles. While different states define comparative fault differently, in general it is a legal doctrine that allows a plaintiff to recover damages from a defendant in a tort lawsuit (for example, in a negligence claim) even if the plaintiff failed to exercise ordinary care for his or her own safety. Currently, Maryland courts follow a different principle called contributory negligence, which generally prevents a plaintiff from recovering damages from a defendant that has harmed him or her if the plaintiff also acted in a negligent manner. The court has not yet indicated how it will proceed, but a change to Maryland s current contributory negligence regime could have immense ramifications for defendants and plaintiffs in cases applying Maryland law. The Report of the Committee The court s request for information was addressed to the Maryland Rules Committee s Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure and included a request that the committee consult with other groups that have shown an interest in the matter, such as the Maryland Defense Counsel, the Maryland Association for Justice, and the Maryland State Bar Association. On April 15, 2011, the committee submitted its special report, entitled Aspects of Contributory Negligence and Comparative Fault to the court. The report recounts the history of contributory and comparative negligence, as well as the methods and effects of various states changes to their common law.[1] In addition, the committee analyzed whether the court, by way of its judicial rulemaking ability, could jettison contributory negligence and replace it with any of several variations of comparative fault applied in other states. The committee focused particularly on whether such a sweeping change could be made by judicial fiat promulgating a new Maryland Rule with prospective application in all future cases or whether such a change could only be done through a holding in an appellate opinion. The
2 committee indicated that it would not make any recommendations about whether the court should adopt the doctrine of comparative fault, noting that the court had not asked for input on this issue. As mentioned above, instead of comparative fault, Maryland courts currently follow a form of the doctrine of contributory negligence, under which a plaintiff who fails to observe ordinary care for his own safety is * + barred from all recovery, regardless of the quantum of a defendant s primary negligence. *2+ Under traditional contributory negligence principles, a finding that the plaintiff s negligence was even 1 percent responsible for the harm that he or she suffered is an absolute bar to the plaintiff s recovery of damages for that harm.[3] Comparative fault, by contrast, does not completely prevent a negligent plaintiff s recovery. Instead, the trier of fact evaluates how much the plaintiff s negligent conduct contributed to bringing about the harm suffered as compared to how much the negligence of the defendant(s) contributed to the harm. The total amount of damages is then apportioned among all responsible parties, including the plaintiff.*4+ The plaintiff s share of the fault thus reduces the ultimate recovery, and the court or jury is asked to hold different defendants liable for the remaining damages based on how much each defendant s negligence contributed to the plaintiff s harm. For example, if a plaintiff and three defendants are each found 25 percent at fault in a trial with a $1,000 damages verdict, the plaintiff may be entitled to recover $250 from the three defendants for a total of only $750. A variation of comparative negligence, known as the modified comparative fault doctrine, bars all recovery by the plaintiff if his or her level of fault reaches 50 percent in some states and over 50 percent in other states.[5] The Committee s Findings The committee attempted to determine the effect that a change from contributory negligence to comparative fault would likely have in Maryland based on the experiences of other states around the country. Due to the lack of reliable studies on the issue, the committee reached no conclusion as to the effect such a change would have in Maryland. One measure of the efficacy of comparative fault in tort litigation, however, may be that none of the 46 states that implemented comparative fault have returned to the doctrine of contributory negligence. The committee observed in the report that the principle of joint and several liability factors into any debate over whether to change from contributory negligence to comparative fault. In a pure joint and several liability state such as Maryland, a plaintiff may recover for all of his or her damages from one defendant, even if multiple tortfeasors contributed by their negligence to the harm suffered. The defendant from whom the plaintiff recovers his or her damages may then seek contribution from the other tortfeasors pursuant to the Maryland Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (Maryland Code, Courts and Judicial Proceedings et. seq.). In general, this statute provides for contribution
3 on a pro rata basis rather than on degree of fault basis. In a comparative fault jurisdiction, however, a determination of the liability of each defendant is made by the finder of fact. Therefore, any calculation of a defendant s liability is based on each defendant s adjudicated percentage of the fault, not merely on a computation of the value of each equal share based on the number of (solvent) joint tortfeasors. Comparative fault systems do not typically allow a plaintiff to recover the entire amount of their damages against one defendant (the essence of joint and several liability).[6] Thus, limitations on joint and several liability tend to reduce or eliminate the need for a defendant s right of contribution against its co-defendants. In comparative fault states, in situations where multiple defendants are held liable, a plaintiff may only recover a portion of his or her damages from each defendant, based on the defendant s share of liability, and there is typically no basis for a defendant to seek contribution from other defendants found liable in the decision. In the report, the committee concluded that the court s ability to create rules was limited to matters affecting practice, procedure and judicial administration. The committee s view was that the doctrines of contributory negligence and comparative fault, as well as associated principles such as joint and several liability, were matters of substantive law that do not fall within the ambit of practice, procedure, or judicial administration. The committee indicated that contributory negligence and its associated principles may be changed by judicial decision (i.e. in an opinion of the court after a properly raised challenge), but not by the court s more limited rulemaking authority. The mere possibility that an appellate court*7+ could judicially abrogate Maryland s common law doctrine of contributory negligence and replace it with some form of comparative fault prompted a group of nineteen delegates of the Maryland General Assembly to introduce the Maryland Contributory Negligence Act in the 2011 Legislative Session. This bill would codify the common law doctrine of contributory negligence to prevent any future modification or change to comparative fault by the court. The Contributory Negligence Act was neither passed out of the House Judiciary Committee nor was it considered by the Maryland Senate. Past attempts to move Maryland from the contributory negligence regime to the comparative fault doctrine have also failed. However, there may be other future proposals in the Maryland General Assembly to maintain contributory negligence or to change to comparative fault. Arguments For and Against a Change From a defendant s perspective, there could be advantages and disadvantages of a switch to a comparative fault regime. The possibility exists that some defendants are, in fact, ill-served by the common law contributory negligence doctrine as it exists in Maryland.[8] Juries may be less likely to find a plaintiff contributorily negligent when they are informed in the jury charge that a finding of contributory negligence will completely prevent the plaintiff's recovery. In such a situation, the jury may come to a compromise verdict, awarding reduced damages instead of finding the defendant(s) not liable for the harm incurred by the plaintiff, even if the plaintiff clearly
4 contributed to the harm he or she suffered, in order to compensate a sympathetic, albeit negligent, plaintiff using the assets of a deep-pocketed defendant. Of course, this type of jury nullification can occur under any liability regime. A change to a pure comparative fault system would not necessarily address this problem, because such a system would still allow a plaintiff who has exhibited more fault than the defendant (or all defendants combined) to recover against them. Similarly, even if Maryland were to change to a modified comparative fault system, juries could still find that a sympathetic plaintiff, who was clearly the primary cause of the harm he or she suffered, was only responsible for 49 percent of the fault for the harm, allowing the sympathetic plaintiff to recover something against the defendant(s) despite the plaintiff s causation of the harm. In addition, many defendants support the winner-take-all (or lose-all) approach under the existing contributory negligence standard. Under contributory negligence, it is sometimes possible for a defendant to obtain summary judgment in a case involving the undisputed negligence of a plaintiff, even if the plaintiff s negligence was only a small factor in causing the harm suffered. Because the question of how much each plaintiff and defendant were at fault is a question of fact, under the comparative fault system, the odds of garnering a dispositive pretrial motion plunge precipitously. Thus, juries will more frequently need to make the difficult decision of whether to send a sympathetic and gravely injured, albeit negligent, plaintiff home empty-handed. Some defendants, however, may benefit from a shift to comparative fault. Currently, under the contributory negligence doctrine, Maryland courts would not typically instruct a jury that they may reduce a negligent defendant s liability if they find that the plaintiff negligently contributed to his or her harm. Under the comparative fault regime, if a jury finds that a plaintiff was responsible for 50 percent of his or her injuries, the jury can, in effect, halve the verdict without having to engage in jury nullification. This could reduce the risk that a jury might refuse to find contributory negligence on the part of a plaintiff, because they feel that the negligent plaintiff deserves to get something, with the result that the defendant must pay for all of the harm suffered by the plaintiff, not just a portion of it. For example, in an automobile tort case, if a speeding plaintiff suffered injuries in a collision involving a defendant who ran a red light, the defendant would certainly prefer a jury find the defendant 50 percent liable, thereby cutting the verdict in half, instead of finding the defendant fully liable for all of the harm suffered by the plaintiff. Also, some defendants may favor the comparative fault system, in which they are less likely to be jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by all defendants and less likely to have to pursue other defendants for contribution. The considerations for and against a change to the comparative fault system are numerous and involved. It is our hope that the debate will develop on an informed basis. Conclusion
5 The court s recent request and the committee s report have re-energized the debate in Maryland about whether and how to change to a comparative fault system. If such a change is on the horizon, some litigants may not have as much to fear as they might expect, as long as comparable changes to the application of joint and several liability keep pace with changes to underlying legal doctrine. On the other hand, the view of those who maintain that if it ain t broke, don t fix it also has validity. Some would argue that a legal doctrine that has been applied in Maryland courts for well over a century could not possibly be as broken as others assert. --By Daniel Wang (pictured) and Christopher J. Madaio, Miles & Stockbridge PC Dan Wang and Chris Madaio are both associates with Miles & Stockbridge in the firm s Baltimore office. The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the firm, its clients, or Portfolio Media, publisher of Law360. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. [1] 170th Report of the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, April 15, [2] Harrison v. Mont. Co. Bd. of Educ., 295 Md. 442, 451 (1983). [3] Only four states (Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, and Alabama) and the District of Columbia still apply the common law contributory negligence doctrine. *4+ Twelve states and three territories have adopted this doctrine, known as pure comparative negligence. [5] Thirty-four states have adopted some form of modified comparative fault. [6] The Committee pointed out that some comparative fault jurisdictions allow joint and several recovery when defendants are found to have acted in concert or if their actions resulted in environmental damages. [7] Maryland has a two-tiered appellate court structure. [8] Other defendants and their insurers (and even some plaintiffs) champion the value of pure contributory negligence, and the authors of this article take no position as to whether the shift to comparative fault is needed or is universally beneficial to defendants. All Content , Portfolio Media, Inc.
Reed Armstrong Quarterly
Reed Armstrong Quarterly January 2009 http://www.reedarmstrong.com/default.asp Contributors: William B. Starnes II Tori L. Cox IN THIS ISSUE: Joint and Several Liability The Fault of Settled Tortfeasors
More informationLOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS
LOUISIANA PERSONAL INJURY ACCIDENT BASICS The Concept of Negligence If you have been injured, only an experienced Louisiana personal injury accident attorney can evaluate the unique facts and circumstances
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT
Filed 10/11/13 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION EIGHT ED AGUILAR, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B238853 (Los Angeles County
More informationAPPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: UNIFORM APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT AS COMPARED TO RESTATEMENT THIRD, TORTS
APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY: UNIFORM APPORTIONMENT OF TORT RESPONSIBILITY ACT AS COMPARED TO RESTATEMENT THIRD, TORTS Presented by: Douglas G. Houser Bullivant Houser Bailey, P.C. Portland, Oregon -2- Where
More informationIN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT
2016 IL App (1st) 150810-U Nos. 1-15-0810, 1-15-0942 cons. Fourth Division June 30, 2016 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in
More informationVIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY -- 2015 SESSION CHAPTER 585 An Act to amend and reenact 38.2-2206 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 7 of Chapter 3 of Title 8.01 a
More informationJoint and Several Liability Under Texas Tort Law
Joint and Several Liability Under Texas Tort Law By Frank Vlahakos and Fred A. Simpson This article points out some recent changes in the basic requirements to establish a defendant s joint and several
More informationHow To Prove That A Person Is Not Responsible For A Cancer
Portfolio Media. Inc. 860 Broadway, 6th Floor New York, NY 10003 www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 Fax: +1 646 783 7161 customerservice@law360.com Alternative Burdens May Come With Alternative Causes
More informationIllinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors
Illinois Supreme Court Requires Plaintiff to Apportion Settlements Among Successive Tortfeasors By: Joseph B. Carini III & Catherine H. Reiter Cole, Grasso, Fencl & Skinner, Ltd. Illinois Courts have long
More informationv. Record No. 080751 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 4, 2009 LOUIS N. JOYNES, II, ET AL.
PRESENT: All the Justices LEO WILLIAMS v. Record No. 080751 OPINION BY JUSTICE BARBARA MILANO KEENAN June 4, 2009 LOUIS N. JOYNES, II, ET AL. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF PORTSMOUTH Dean W. Sword,
More informationWikiLeaks Document Release
WikiLeaks Document Release February 2, 2009 Congressional Research Service Report RS20519 ASBESTOS COMPENSATION ACT OF 2000 Henry Cohen, American Law Division Updated April 13, 2000 Abstract. This report
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 14, 2015 california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and
More informationASSEMBLY BILL No. 597
california legislature 2015 16 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 597 Introduced by Assembly Member Cooley February 24, 2015 An act to amend Sections 36 and 877 of, and to add Chapter 6 (commencing with
More information2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U. Order filed September 23, 2013 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2013
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1). 2013 IL App (3d) 120130-U Order
More informationSUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc
SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI en banc Robert E. Fast, M.D., et al., Appellants, vs. No. SC89734 F. James Marston, M.D., Respondent. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BUCHANAN COUNTY Honorable Weldon C. Judah,
More informationNo-Fault Automobile Insurance
No-Fault Automobile Insurance By Margaret C. Jasper, Esq. Prior to the enactment of state no-fault insurance legislation, recovery for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident were subject
More informationNo. 1-10-0602 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
SECOND DIVISION May 31, 2011 No. 1-10-0602 Notice: This order was filed under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under
More informationSTATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110. Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant.
STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A13-1110 Faron L. Clark, Respondent, vs. Sheri Connor, et al., Defendants, Vydell Jones, Appellant. Filed January 21, 2014 Affirmed Hooten, Judge Cass County District
More informationNOVEMBER 2013 LAW REVIEW TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL IMMUNITY FOR LOCAL PARKS
TRADITIONAL MUNICIPAL IMMUNITY FOR LOCAL PARKS James C. Kozlowski, J.D., Ph.D. 2013 James C. Kozlowski The law of personal injury liability is a creature of State law with a wide variety of jurisdictional
More informationPROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM. Carl Tobias*
PROCEDURAL PROVISIONS IN NEVADA MEDICAL MALPRACTICE REFORM Carl Tobias* In late July 2002, a special session of the Nevada Legislature passed medical malpractice reform legislation. 1 The expressly-stated
More informationJUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FAIRFAX COUNTY Michael P. McWeeney, Judge
PRESENT: ALL THE JUSTICES MARK FIVE CONSTRUCTION, INC., TO THE USE OF AMERICAN ECONOMY INSURANCE CO. OPINION BY JUSTICE G. STEVEN AGEE v. Record No. 061304 June 8, 2007 CASTLE CONTRACTORS, ET AL. FROM
More informationReports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationIN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA TRIAL DIVISION CIVIL SECTION LOUISE FOSTER Administrator of the : AUGUST TERM 2010 Estate of GEORGE FOSTER : and BARBARA DILL : vs.
More informationAGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 Cite as 20 Neb. App. 597. N.W.2d
AGUIRRE v. UNION PACIFIC RR. CO. 597 At the hearing on the motion to withdraw his plea, he requested that the court take judicial notice of a six-page portion of the U.S. statutes. The court took judicial
More informationHow To Pass A Bill In The United States
S.B. SENATE BILL NO. SENATOR ROBERSON MARCH, Referred to Committee on Judiciary SUMMARY Revises provisions relating to certain civil actions involving negligence. (BDR -) FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government:
More informationLegalFormsForTexas.Com
Information or instructions: acknowledgment Personal injury settlement statement and client 1. The following form may be used as part of a personal injury settlement. 2. The form is a disclosure statement
More informationDISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS. No. 03-CV-1445. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (CA-3748-02)
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections
More informationFebruary 20, 1978. You inquire concerning section 4 of 1977 House Bill 2490, an amendment. Dear Commissioner Bell:
February 20, 1978 ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 78-81 Mr. Fletcher Bell Commissioner of Insurance Kansas Insurance Department 1st Floor - State Office Building Topeka, Kansas 66612 Re: Motor Vehicles--Insurance--Rights
More informationCOMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE UNDER NRS 41.141:
COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE UNDER NRS 41.141: FALLING SHORT OF EXPECTATIONS BY Michael P. Lowry, Esq. NRS 41.141 was first enacted in 1973 with the goal of abolishing the harsh doctrines of contributory negligence
More informationUTAH. Past medical expenses may be recovered. Plaintiffs must show that they have been injured and,
UTAH Rick L. Rose Kristine M. Larsen RAY QUINNEY & NEBEKER P.C. 36 South State Street, Suite 1400 P.O. Box 43585 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 532-1500 Facsimile: (801) 532-7543 rrose@rqn.com
More informationSUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE. E. SCOTT BRADLEY SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947.
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE E. SCOTT BRADLEY SUSSEX COUNTY COURTHOUSE JUDGE 1 The Circle, Suite 2 GEORGETOWN, DE 19947 January 26, 2010 Robin M. Grogan, Esquire Bifferato Gentilotti LLC 800
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 03-2860 Tamela J. Petrillo, et al., * * Plaintiffs - Appellants, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Northern District
More informationNegligence & Tort Law
Negligence & Tort Law How to Prove Negligence The plaintiff needs to prove four elements by a preponderance of the evidence Duty Breach of Duty Causation (two parts) Damages Duty Defined: A legal obligation
More information2005-C -2496 CHARLES ALBERT AND DENISE ALBERT v. FARM BUREAU INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. (Parish of Lafayette)
FOR IMMEDIATE NEWS RELEASE NEWS RELEASE # 0 FROM: CLERK OF SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA The Opinions handed down on the 17th day of October, 200, are as follows: PER CURIAM: 2005-C -249 CHARLES ALBERT AND
More informationUNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division
PUBLISHED UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division IN RE: WILLIAM G. DADE ) Case No. 00-32487 ANN E. DADE ) Chapter 7 Debtors. ) ) ) DEBORAH R. JOHNSON ) Adversary
More informationREFERENCE ACTION ANALYST STAFF DIRECTOR or. 1) Civil Justice Subcommittee 8 Y, 5 N, As CS Malcolm Bond
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES STAFF ANALYSIS BILL #: CS/HB 1199 Damages in Personal Injury Actions SPONSOR(S): Civil Justice Subcommittee; Metz and others TIED BILLS: None IDEN./SIM. BILLS: SB 1240 REFERENCE
More informationMedical Malpractice Defenses
Ch24-A04438 9/18/06 1:46 PM Page 257 C H A P T E R 2 4 Medical Malpractice Defenses S. Sandy Sanbar, M.D., Ph.D., J.D. GOLDEN RULES 1. The physician should be knowledgeable of the general defense theories
More informationREPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND. No. 2287. September Term, 2008. CHARLES T. BRANNAN, JR., et al.
REPORTED IN THE COURT OF SPECIAL APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 2287 September Term, 2008 CHARLES T. BRANNAN, JR., et al. v. WALLACE & GALE ASBESTOS SETTLEMENT TRUST Eyler, Deborah S., Meredith, Hackner, Paul
More informationLAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001
1 LAW REFORM (CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE) AMENDMENT BILL 2001 EXPLANATORY NOTES GENERAL OUTLINE OBJECTIVES OF THE LEGISLATION The purpose of this Bill is to address the impact of the decision of the High
More informationCase 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
Case 2:09-cv-00532-JPH Document 23 Filed 02/02/10 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL WALKER : CIVIL ACTION : v. : : NO. 09-532 BIG BURGER RESTAURANTS,
More informationBest Practices for Complying with New Medicare Reporting Requirements What Every Attorney Needs to Know By Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq.
Best Practices for Complying with New Medicare Reporting Requirements What Every Attorney Needs to Know By Ervin A. Gonzalez, Esq. I. Overview: How does the MMSEA impact personal injury and mass tort settlements?
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed 12/1/98 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR BRADLEY JOHNSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, B115029 (Super. Ct. No. MC001725)
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More information2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
2:08-cv-12533-DPH-PJK Doc # 67 Filed 03/26/13 Pg 1 of 7 Pg ID 2147 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE COMPANY, v. Plaintiff, MICHIGAN CATASTROPHIC
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION
Case: 4:12-cv-02030-DDN Doc. #: 42 Filed: 06/19/13 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DIVISION MARY HAYDEN, ) individually and as plaintiff
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS NO. 13-1006 IN RE ESSEX INSURANCE COMPANY, RELATOR ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS PER CURIAM Rafael Zuniga sued San Diego Tortilla (SDT) for personal injuries and then added
More informationSHANA J. SHUTLER OPINION BY v. Record No. 051852 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 8, 2006 AUGUSTA HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN, P.L.C.
Present: All the Justices SHANA J. SHUTLER OPINION BY v. Record No. 051852 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. June 8, 2006 AUGUSTA HEALTH CARE FOR WOMEN, P.L.C. FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF AUGUSTA COUNTY Humes
More informationA Bill Clarifying a Workers Compensation Insurer s. Subrogation Interest in Third-Party Claims
Subrogation Options for Consideration A Bill Clarifying a Workers Compensation Insurer s Subrogation Interest in Third-Party Claims Whereas, subrogation is a device of equity which is designed to compel
More informationUnintentional Torts - Definitions
Unintentional Torts - Definitions Negligence The failure to exercise the degree of care that a reasonable person would exercise that results in the proximate cause of actual harm to an innocent person.
More information-vs- No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff and Respondent,
No. 89-261 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1990 STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, -vs- Plaintiff and Respondent, THE ESTATE OF GARY NELSON BRAUN, Deceased, and CHESTER V. BRAUN,
More informationTHE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC
THE TRIAL OF A LEGAL MALPRACTICE CASE: SELECTED PRACTICAL ISSUES BY: DAVID C. PISHKO ELLIOT PISHKO MORGAN, P.A. WINSTON-SALEM, NC The trial of a legal malpractice action raises several practical issues
More informationSUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA
o SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 95-C-1851 DONALD HEBERT Versus JOE JEFFREY, JR., VENTURE TRANSPORT COMPANY, RANGER INSURANCE COMPANY, THOMAS H. GORDON, DWIGHT J. GRANIER AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-408 JAMES K. MEADOR V. APPELLANT T O T A L C O M P L I A N C E CONSULTANTS, INC., AND BILL MEDLEY APPELLEES Opinion Delivered January 31, 2013 APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY
More information2015 IL App (3d) 130003-U. Order filed February 5, 2015 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS THIRD DISTRICT A.D., 2015
NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e(1. 2015 IL App (3d 130003-U Order filed
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida No. SC02-2659 CYNTHIA CLEFF NORMAN, Petitioner, vs. TERRI LAMARRIA FARROW, Respondent. [June 24, 2004] WELLS, J. We have for review Norman v. Farrow, 832 So. 2d 158 (Fla. 1st DCA
More informationLIABILITY INSURANCE: RESERVATION OF RIGHTS, INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS
LIABILITY INSURANCE: RESERVATION OF RIGHTS, INTERVENTION, AND DECLARATORY JUDGMENTS Liability insurance policies describe two duties on the part of a liability insurer: the duty to defend a suit against
More informationUNIFORM COMPARATIVE FAULT ACT
Section 1. Effect of Contributory Fault. 2. Apportionment of Damages. 3. Set-off. 4. Right of Contribution. 5. Enforcement of Contribution. 6. Effect of Release. 7. Uniformity of Application and Construction.
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS 444444444444 NO. 11-0425 444444444444 PETROLEUM SOLUTIONS, INC., PETITIONER, v. BILL HEAD D/B/A BILL HEAD ENTERPRISES AND TITEFLEX CORPORATION, RESPONDENTS 4444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444444
More informationADJUSTING TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN NEBRASKA
ADJUSTING TO COMPARATIVE NEGLIGENCE IN NEBRASKA BARRY S. GROSSMANt With the adoption of Nebraska Legislative Bill Eighty-Eight, Nebraska becomes one of the last states to adopt comparative negligence.
More informationCRIMINAL DEFENSE AGREEMENTS
5/6/13 CRIMINAL DEFENSE & CIVIL LITIGATION AGREEMENTS LLOYD M. CUETO LAW OFFICE OF LLOYD M. CUETO P.C. 7110 WEST MAIN STREET BELLEVILLE, ILLINOIS 62223 (618) 277-1554 CRIMINAL DEFENSE AGREEMENTS HOW TO
More informationDATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/94 HON. L. BRELAND HILBURN, JR. JOHN P. SNEED
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSISSIPPI NO. 94-IA-00905-SCT MISSISSIPPI TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION v. MILDRED JENKINS AND MOBILE MEDICAL AMBULANCE SERVICE, INC. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09/01/94 TRIAL JUDGE: COURT
More information2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U. No. 1-14-1985 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
2015 IL App (1st) 141985-U No. 1-14-1985 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances allowed under Rule 23(e)(1).
More informationTHE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES. By Craig R. White
THE THREAT OF BAD FAITH LITIGATION ETHICAL HANDLING OF CLAIMS AND GOOD FAITH SETTLEMENT PRACTICES By Craig R. White SKEDSVOLD & WHITE, LLC. 1050 Crown Pointe Parkway Suite 710 Atlanta, Georgia 30338 (770)
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
2015 IL 118143 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS (Docket No. 118143) ALMA McVEY, Appellee, v. M.L.K. ENTERPRISES, L.L.C. (Southern Illinois Hospital Services, d/b/a Memorial Hospital of Carbondale,
More informationNO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation
NO. 142, September Term, 1994 Chambco, A Division of Chamberlin Waterproofing & Roofing, Inc. v. Urban Masonry Corporation [Involves Maryland Code (1974, 1995 Repl. Vol.), 10-504 Of The Courts And Judicial
More informationThings You Should Know About Your Child s Personal Injury Case
Things You Should Know About Your Child s Personal Injury Case Virginia law treats often children differently than it treats adults for many reasons. Children are not considered mature enough to understand
More informationDUTY TO SETTLE WHEN FACED WITH MULTIPLE CLAIMS AND LIMITED POLICY LIMITS ABOUT THE AUTHORS
DUTY TO SETTLE WHEN FACED WITH MULTIPLE CLAIMS AND LIMITED POLICY LIMITS ABOUT THE AUTHORS Jay Barry Harris is a proud member of the International Association of Defense Counsel. As a named partner at
More informationWASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL LIABILITY & PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR STEVEN M. PAVSNER SYLLABUS
I. Synopsis WASHINGTON COLLEGE OF LAW, AMERICAN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL LIABILITY & PUBLIC HEALTH PROFESSOR STEVEN M. PAVSNER SYLLABUS The objective of the seminar, Medical Liability and Public Health, is to
More information(129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT
(129th General Assembly) (Amended Substitute House Bill Number 380) AN ACT To enact sections 2307.951, 2307.952, 2307.953, and 2307.954 of the Revised Code to require claimants in asbestos tort actions
More informationDealing with the Unreasonable Workers Compensation Lien Holder Where a Contribution Case Exists or Can Exist Against the Employer
Dealing with the Unreasonable Workers Compensation Lien Holder Where a Contribution Case Exists or Can Exist Against the Employer by Christopher M. Norem & Jordan LaClair Introduction The scenario: Your
More informationDefense of State Employees: LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS. UNCW Office of General Counsel January 2010
Defense of State Employees: LIABILITY AND LAWSUITS UNCW Office of General Counsel January 2010 COMMON CAUSES OF ACTION (or what could we be sued for) Tort claims Contract claims Discrimination/Harassment
More informationHow To Get A Summary Judgment In A Well Service Case In Texas
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION JASON LONG, Plaintiff, v. NO. 0:00-CV-000 ABC THE CHABON GROUP, INC., Defendant. DEFENDANT S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
FOR PUBLICATION ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: RUDOLPH R. PYLE, III Indianapolis, Indiana DONALD L. HARDAMON Indianapolis, Indiana ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: RANDALL L. JUERGENSEN RYAN K. JOHNSON Keller & Keller
More information****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More information2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U. No. 1-12-0898
2013 IL App (1st) 120898-U FOURTH DIVISION March 28, 2013 No. 1-12-0898 NOTICE: This order was filed under Supreme Court Rule 23 and may not be cited as precedent by any party except in the limited circumstances
More informationNo. 2001-CC-0175 CLECO CORPORATION. Versus LEONARD JOHNSON AND LEGION INDEMNITY COMPANY
9-18-01 SUPREME COURT OF LOUISIANA No. 2001-CC-0175 CLECO CORPORATION Versus LEONARD JOHNSON AND LEGION INDEMNITY COMPANY ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT, PARISH OF ST. TAMMANY
More informationNO. COA12-1176 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS. Filed: 2 April 2013
NO. COA12-1176 NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS Filed: 2 April 2013 BOBBY ANGLIN, Plaintiff, v. Mecklenburg County No. 12 CVS 1143 DUNBAR ARMORED, INC. AND GALLAGER BASSETT SERVICES, INC., Defendants. Liens
More informationAN ACT. To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act.
3721L.01I AN ACT To amend chapter 383, RSMo, by adding thereto thirteen new sections relating to the Missouri health care arbitration act. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF MISSOURI,
More informationThe Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements. By: Thomas J. Smith The Law Offices of Thomas J. Smith San Antonio, Texas
The Enforceability of Mediated Settlement Agreements By: Thomas J. Smith The Law Offices of Thomas J. Smith San Antonio, Texas NIGHTMARE ON MEDIATION STREET You mediate a case where the Plaintiff is suing
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND MARYLAND ACCOUNTING SERVICES, INC., et al. Plaintiffs, v. Case No. CCB-11-CV-00145 CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY, Defendant. MEMORANDUM Plaintiffs
More informationPersonal Injury Litigation
Personal Injury Litigation The Anatomy of a New York Personal Injury Lawsuit An ebook by Stuart DiMartini, Esq. 1325 Sixth Avenue, 27 th Floor New York, NY 10019 212-5181532 dimartinilaw.com Introduction
More informationBefore the recent passage of CRS 10-1-135, claims for subrogation
Reproduced by permission. 2011 Colorado Bar Association, 40 The Colorado Lawyer 41 (February 2011). All rights reserved. TORT AND INSURANCE LAW CRS 10-1-135 and the Changing Face of Subrogation Claims
More informationProfessional Practice 544
February 15, 2016 Professional Practice 544 Tort Law and Insurance Michael J. Hanahan Schiff Hardin LLP 233 S. Wacker, Ste. 6600 Chicago, IL 60606 312-258-5701 mhanahan@schiffhardin.com Schiff Hardin LLP.
More informationConsider this typical liability scenario: Plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit arising out of
BRIDGING THE GAP : MAJOR CHANGES TO MINNESOTA S COLLATERAL SOURCE LAW IN SWANSON V. BREWSTER DAVID E. CAMAROTTO JANINE M. LUHTALA Consider this typical liability scenario: Plaintiff in a personal injury
More informationThe Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina Burton Craige
The Road to Comparative Fault in North Carolina Burton Craige North Carolina is one of only five jurisdictions that retain the antiquated doctrine of contributory negligence. Here, as in Alabama, Maryland,
More informationWRITTEN TESTIMONY OF BRYAN C. SKARLATOS, ESQ. given it powers to collect money and property that far exceed those of any ordinary creditor.
WRITTEN TESTIMONY OF BRYAN C. SKARLATOS, ESQ. The Internal Revenue Service (the Service ) is a Super Creditor because Congress has given it powers to collect money and property that far exceed those of
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS JAMES HENDRICK, v Plaintiff-Appellant, STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, UNPUBLISHED May 24, 2007 No. 275318 Montcalm Circuit Court LC No. 06-007975-NI
More informationORDER GRANTING TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY / HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE S MOTION TO INTERVENE
Pulitano v. Thayer St. Associates, Inc., No. 407-9-06 Wmcv (Wesley, J., Oct. 23, 2009) [The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy
More informationReports or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the
****************************************************** The officially released date that appears near the beginning of each opinion is the date the opinion will be published in the Connecticut Law Journal
More informationEmployers Mutual Insurance Co. (:MEMIC) and by defendant Yarmouth Lumber Inc.
STATE OF MAINE CUMBERLAND, ss. SUPERIOR COURT CNILACTION Docket No. CV-06-404.' ~ 1\": \,.'" l,} \'}\ - / -~_..~'jl, --f'i 'j - C ~ ~, DONALD l. GARBRECHT v. ORDER LAW LIBRARY ROBERT HUTTON, et al, FEB
More informationSTATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-987 **********
STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT 03-987 LAWANDA THEODILE VERSUS RPM PIZZA, INC. ********** APPEAL FROM THE OFFICE OF WORKERS' COMPENSATION - # 4 PARISH OF LAFAYETTE, NO. 03-02178 SHARON
More informationMONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION
MONTANA SELF INSURERS ASSOCIATION Executive Director Bob Worthington Board of Directors Rick Clark Plum Creek Timber Co Tim Fitzpatrick MT Schools Group Donna Haeder NorthWestern Corp Marv Jordan MT Contractors
More informationTitle 8 Laws of Bermuda Item 67 BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS
BERMUDA 1951 : 39 LAW REFORM (LIABILITY IN TORT) ACT 1951 ARRANGEMENT OF SECTIONS 1 Interpretation 2 Savings 3 Apportionment of liability where contributory negligence 4 Defence of common employment abolished
More informationVII. JUDGMENT RULE 54. JUDGMENTS; COSTS
VII. JUDGMENT RULE 54. JUDGMENTS; COSTS (a) Definition; Form. Judgment as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of pleadings
More informationHow To Settle A Car Accident In The Uk
PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE PERSONAL INJURY COMPENSATION CLAIM GUIDE This booklet has been produced by D.J. Synnott Solicitors to give our clients an understanding of the personal injury compensation
More information809.100 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES PERSONAL INJURY GENERALLY. 1
Page 1 of 5 809.100 MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DAMAGES PERSONAL INJURY GENERALLY. 1 (Use for claims filed on or after 1 October 2011. For claims filed before 1 October 2011, use N.C.P.I.-Civil 810.00 et seq.)
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION. Case No. 00-CV-73764
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DENICE HURTADO and JOHN HURTADO, Plaintiffs. vs. MERCEDEZ BENZ, Case No. 00-CV-73764 HON. AVERN COHN Defendant. / MEMORANDUM
More informationNo. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT. 427 F.3d 1048; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 22999
RONALD WARRUM, in his capacity as Personal Representative of the Estate of JOSEPH F. SAYYAH, Deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee. No. 04-3753 UNITED STATES COURT
More information