Joint-liability rules clarified for cases with both negligent and intentional acts
(Continued - Page 2)

Justice Barbara Madsen, writing for the Tegman majority, recognized that the 1986 Tort Reform Act abolished joint and several liability in most situations. Several or proportionate liability is intended to be the rule, not the exception. But the abolition of joint and several liability applies only to torts that fall within the act’s definition of "fault." That definition includes acts that "are in any measure negligent or reckless." The Supreme Court previously held that the Legislature clearly intended that this definition exclude intentional acts. The act imposed joint and several liability among at-fault defendants for their proportionate shares of fault. Since intentional acts are outside the definition of fault, the damages that result from them are excluded from the equation.

Here, both negligent and intentional acts caused the plaintiff’s harm. The Tegman majority held that this requires the trier of fact to apportion damages attributable to intentional acts versus those attributable to negligence or recklessness. Only the latter are subject to joint and several liability. The negligent defendants, such as Noble, are not jointly and severally liable for the damages caused by the intentional acts of McClellan and AMI.

The Tegman Court noted, "All of the defendants in this case are jointly and severally liable, but not for the same damages." The Court ordered the case remanded to the trial court so that it could apportion the damages between the defendants’ joint liabilities and their several liabilities.

Justice Tom Chambers and three other justices dissented. They asserted that the majority’s decision "will be torturous if not unworkable in trials across the state and will cause absurd results for parties." It will require juries to segregate damages that are indivisible and not susceptible to such segregation. The dissenting justices contended that the statutory language permitted joint and several liability here because plaintiffs were not at fault, and that is a situation in which joint and several liability survives.

The Lee Smart Quarterly is a publication of the law offices of Lee, Smart, Cook, Martin & Patterson, P.S., Inc. for clients and others. It is intended as general information only and is not to be construed as legal advice. You should consult an attorney if you have any specific legal questions.

Editor: Jeffrey P. Downer	Eml: jpd@leesmart.com
Phone: 206.621.3482	Toll Free: 877.624.7990