Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Torts
Apportioning Liability In Maryland Tort Cases: Time To End Contributory Negligence And Joint And Several Liability, Donald G. Gifford, Christopher J. Robinette
Apportioning Liability In Maryland Tort Cases: Time To End Contributory Negligence And Joint And Several Liability, Donald G. Gifford, Christopher J. Robinette
Donald G Gifford
The Article presents a comprehensive proposal for assigning liability in tort cases according to the parties’ respective degrees of fault. The authors criticize the Court of Appeals of Maryland’s recent decision in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia declining to abrogate contributory negligence, particularly the court’s notion that it should not act because of the legislature’s repeated failure to do so. The Article provides a comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of comparative fault, including its effect on administrative costs, claims frequency, claims severity, insurance premiums, and economic performance. The authors propose the legislative enactment of comparative fault and …
The Death Of The Common Law: Judicial Abdication And Contributory Negligence In Maryland, Donald G. Gifford
The Death Of The Common Law: Judicial Abdication And Contributory Negligence In Maryland, Donald G. Gifford
Donald G Gifford
The issue of how to handle a victim’s own contributory negligence that combines with the negligence of a tortfeasor in causing harm is one of the most important, if not the most important, issue in all of tort law. Forty-six states now apply some version of comparative fault that holds the defendant liable for its negligence even when the plaintiff is also careless, but reduces the award in proportion to the plaintiff’s degree of fault when compared with that of the defendant. In contrast, the Maryland Court of Appeals in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia recently refused again to …
Comparative Fault And Strict Products Liability: Are They Compatible?, C. R. Hickey
Comparative Fault And Strict Products Liability: Are They Compatible?, C. R. Hickey
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring
Another Citadel Has Fallen - This Time The Plaintiff's. California Applies Comparative Negligence To Strict Products Liability, Thomas G. Gehring
Pepperdine Law Review
No abstract provided.
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Allocation Of Responsibility After American Motorcycle Association V. Superior Court, Erwin E. Adler
Pepperdine Law Review
In its landmark case of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., the California Supreme Court judicially adopted the doctrine of comparative negligence in an action involving a plaintiff and a single defendant. The court in Li specifically avoided making any decision concerning the numerous issues which would be involved in a multi-party action: the relationship of multiple defendants with one another, the right of one defendant to join others for the purpose of sharing payment of the judgment, the respective responsibilities of such parties for the judgment (including those insolvent, partially solvent or possessing an immunity), and the procedure for the …
The Death Of The Common Law: Judicial Abdication And Contributory Negligence In Maryland, Donald G. Gifford
The Death Of The Common Law: Judicial Abdication And Contributory Negligence In Maryland, Donald G. Gifford
Maryland Law Review Online
The issue of how to handle a victim’s own contributory negligence that combines with the negligence of a tortfeasor in causing harm is one of the most important, if not the most important, issue in all of tort law. Forty-six states now apply some version of comparative fault that holds the defendant liable for its negligence even when the plaintiff is also careless, but reduces the award in proportion to the plaintiff’s degree of fault when compared with that of the defendant. In contrast, the Maryland Court of Appeals in Coleman v. Soccer Association of Columbia recently refused again to …
Through The Backdoor: Manipulating Assumption Of Risk And Contributory Negligence To Apply In Texas Nonsubscriber Causes Of Action., Lara Brock, Javier Espinoza
Through The Backdoor: Manipulating Assumption Of Risk And Contributory Negligence To Apply In Texas Nonsubscriber Causes Of Action., Lara Brock, Javier Espinoza
The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice
Texas’s nonsubscriber law precedence and interpretation directly conflict with the plain language and legislative intent of Texas Labor Code § 406.033. The purpose of § 406.033 is to protect injured workers and to encourage employers to subscribe to the state’s workers’ compensation system. Texas, however, allows employers to opt-out. Employers who elect to opt out of the workers’ compensation system are called “nonsubscribers.” By making this decision, nonsubscribers save on the cost of paying premiums for worker’s compensation, but potentially expose themselves to total liability against injured employees who can prove his or her employer breached one of their defined …