Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Law School News: Logan To Serve As Adviser On Restatement Third Of Torts 11-07-2019, Michael M. Bowden
Law School News: Logan To Serve As Adviser On Restatement Third Of Torts 11-07-2019, Michael M. Bowden
Life of the Law School (1993- )
No abstract provided.
California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 877, 877.5 And 877.6: The Settlement Game In The Ballpark That Tech-Bilt, Emery J. Mishky, Robert Tessier, Patrick G. Vastano
California Code Of Civil Procedure Sections 877, 877.5 And 877.6: The Settlement Game In The Ballpark That Tech-Bilt, Emery J. Mishky, Robert Tessier, Patrick G. Vastano
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Who Owes How Much? Developments In Apportionment And Joint And Several Liability Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, Thomas A. Eaton
Who Owes How Much? Developments In Apportionment And Joint And Several Liability Under O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33, Thomas A. Eaton
Scholarly Works
Without question, O.C.G.A. 51-12-13 as construed in McReynolds and Couch ushers in a new era in Georgia tort law. It topples the old regime in which multiple tortfeasors were held jointly liable when their combined acts of negligence injured an innocent plaintiff. The new regime is one of apportionment and liability limited to one's personal share of fault. Fault may be apportioned when it previously could not. It may be apportioned to those who are immune, to those who are unknown, and even to those who intentionally injure an innocent plaintiff. The practical consequence of this regime change is to …
Apportionment Of Liability And The Intentional Torts: The Time Is Right For Change, Brian C. Crocker
Apportionment Of Liability And The Intentional Torts: The Time Is Right For Change, Brian C. Crocker
Dalhousie Law Journal
In a tort action based solely on the Defendant's wrongful intentional conduct, both parties have been, until recently, at a decided disadvantage. There could be no apportionment of liability between the Plaintiff and Defendant. Fault concepts were seen in absolute terms. Either the Defendant was totally liable for the damages or he was not liable at all. Principles of apportionment of liability generally were not seen as applicable to the intentional torts. Thus, a Plaintiff's contributory fault was irrelevant in determining the Defendant's liability. Likewise, provocation was not a 'defence' and did not, in all jurisdictions, always reduce compensatory damages. …
Shor V. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1977), June Hinson Allen
Shor V. Paoli, 353 So. 2d 825 (Fla. 1977), June Hinson Allen
Florida State University Law Review
Torts-RIGHT OF CONTRIBUTION IS NOT BARRED BY DOCTRINE OF INTERSPOUSAL IMMUNITY IN FLORIDA.