Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
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
Faculty Scholarship
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 …
Exploring The Relationship Between Consent, Assumption Of Risk, And Victim Negligence, Kenneth Simons
Exploring The Relationship Between Consent, Assumption Of Risk, And Victim Negligence, Kenneth Simons
Faculty Scholarship
This chapter analyzes the nature of consensual rationales for precluding tort liability, and explores the relationship between consent to an intentional tort, assumption of risk, and victim negligence. Is consent conceptually and normatively distinguishable from assumption of risk? Yes and no: they differ in some respects, but share a common core. Are they equally valid bases for precluding, and not merely reducing, recovery? Yes: court justifiably invoke consent more often than assumption of risk, not because the doctrines differ in principle, but because of factual differences between the most common scenarios in which each arises. In paradigm consent scenarios, the …
Joint And Several Liability In Minnesota: The 2003 Model, Michael K. Steenson
Joint And Several Liability In Minnesota: The 2003 Model, Michael K. Steenson
Faculty Scholarship
The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will have the economic impact its proponents suggest it will have is a question that is not susceptible of a ready answer now, or perhaps in the immediate future. From a fairness standpoint, any assessment of the amendment has to take into consideration the full reach of the Comparative Fault Act. It is important to understand that on balance the Act works to the disadvantage of the plaintiff in a variety of ways. The plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the …
Keeping The Pierringer Promise: Fair Settlements And Fair Trials, Peter B. Knapp
Keeping The Pierringer Promise: Fair Settlements And Fair Trials, Peter B. Knapp
Faculty Scholarship
This article explores why Perringer releases have failed to promise fairness to the nonsettling defendant. For over thirty years, Pierringer releases have been part of the ebb and flow of civil litigation. In 1978, the Minnesota Supreme Court officially approved the use of Pierringer releases in Minnesota. When first adopted, the release seemed to promise something for everyone. The Pierringer release even offered a promise of fairness to the nonsettling defendant: Be assured that, no matter what the outcome of trial, you will pay no more than your “fair share” of the verdict. Unfortunately, however, largely because of the impact …
The Anatomy Of Products Liability In Minnesota: Principles Of Loss Allocation, Michael K. Steenson
The Anatomy Of Products Liability In Minnesota: Principles Of Loss Allocation, Michael K. Steenson
Faculty Scholarship
In this article, Professor Steenson continues the discussion that began in The Anatomy of Products Liability in Minnesota: The Theories of Recovery, appearing in the last Issue of the William Mitchell Law Review, by shifting the analytical focus to the problems involved in allocating awards among the parties in Minnesota products liability cases. Professor Steenson analyzes defenses, contribution and indemnity, and the impact of Minnesota's comparative fault act on products liability law.