Law Commons^™

Efficiency, Fairness, And Common Sense: The Case For One Action As To Percentage Of Fault In Comparative Negligence Jurisdictions That Have Abolished Or Modified Joint And Several Liability, John S. Hickman

Vanderbilt Law Review

Plaintiffs are the masters of their own actions.' They decide when, where, and whom to sue. Although the law has evolved in ways that limit a plaintiffs procedural choices, plaintiffs enjoy a growing number of situations in which they can recover, and an increase in the number of possible defendants For example, governmental tort liability statutes, while limiting procedural choices, now allow plaintiffs to sue government entities. Modern jurisdictional rules give courts a wider reach and thus enable plaintiffs to reach more defendants in one action. Perhaps most importantly, a plaintiffs own negligence no longer bars recovery in most jurisdictions. …

Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants, Jane G. Parks

Vanderbilt Law Review

This Recent Development argues that no single federal common law rule of contribution exists and that federal securities law decisions provide the best analogy from which to imply a right of contribution under the antitrust laws. Thus, the Recent Development proposes that the Supreme Court should fashion a rule permitting contribution among antitrust defendants.

Recent Cases, Stephen K. Rush, Joseph A. Latham, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Conflicts of Law--Federal Preemption--Aviation Law

Appellant-defendants, the United States' and a national airline whose plane had been involved in a mid-air collision while under radar direction from the FAA, agreed to a settlement of the resulting actions for wrongful death that had been initiated in various federal district courts and consolidated in the Southern District of Indiana. Appellants then sought indemnity and contribution by cross-claim and third-party complaints against appellee-defendants, the owners of the other plane involved in the collision and the estate of its student pilot. The appellees contended that since no right to indemnity and contribution existed under …

Comments On Maki V. Frelk, Harry Kalven Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

My first reaction to the performance of the Illinois Appellate Court in Maki v. Frelk was to recall the old joke about the man who, when asked if he believed in baptism, replied: "Believe in it, hell, I've seen it done!" In any event the decision provides a twin stimulus to the commentator: first, to say something about the limits of common law change, and second, to say something about comparative negligence itself. Despite the spectacular novelty of the court's action, these re-main well-worn topics on which it will not be easy to say anything fresh. I am, however, moved …

Comment, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

The majority opinion in the Illinois Supreme Court held that if a change was to be made, the task was for the legislature, not the court. The five in the majority were not ready to deliver an opinion like that in MacPherson, Henningsen, Greenman.' If they had, there is real reason to believe that a similar consequence of an immediate and substantial judicial following would have developed. Without saying so, they seemed to be influenced by the thought that they would be complete pioneers in uncharted territory, with no precedents to rely upon or to interpret. Are there any judicial …

Comment, Robert A. Leflar

Vanderbilt Law Review

It is increasingly common today for courts to render opinions as they did in an earlier common law era, that is, to answer the principally litigated issue first, then to give answers to incidental questions that are apt to arise thereafter. Admittedly these incidental answers are dicta only, but they are substantially authoritative and serve useful purposes. By employing such a technique, appellate courts can do a better job than legislatures usually have done in promulgating comparative negligence rules. With respect to matters upon which the legislature has never taken any position, legislative inaction constitutes no affirmative assertion of legislative …

Comments On Maki V. Frelk--Comparative V.Contributory Negligence: Should The Court Or Legislature Decide?, Fleming James Jr., Harry Kalven Jr., Robert E. Keeton, Robert A. Leflar, Wex S. Malone, John W. Wade

Vanderbilt Law Review

Believing that the holdings and opinions in the case of Maki v. Frelkare significant legal developments, the Vanderbilt Law Review has solicited comments on these decisions, which it is now pleased to publish. These comments by six distinguished torts teachers and writers bear on the relative merits of comparative and contributory negligence, but more importantly, they discuss whether the judicial or legislative method is most appropriate for adoption of a rule of comparative negligence. It is hoped that these comments will be used as a sound basis for action, whether the problem arises before the courts or legislatures.