Jury must apportion fault to Indian tribe that is immune from suit
(Continued - Page 2)

Crowder. During discovery, it became clear that one cause of the accident was the casino staff’s failure to perform the rigging function properly. But the riggers worked for an Indian tribe that runs the casino, and tribes are considered sovereign nations that are immune from suit.

Because juries in negligence cases must apportion fault among all entities whose fault caused the accident, the Court of Appeals was required to decide whether a Native American tribe that was immune from suit nevertheless could be a “nonparty at fault” for the tort. If not, then Fritz, the truck company, could be liable for all of Humes’s damages, even though it would be held only partly at fault for the accident.

The Court of Appeals concluded that a tribe’s sovereign immunity does not preclude an allocation of fault to it. The court noted that in adopting several liability in 1986, the Legislature intended that defendants be liable for only their proportionate shares of the plaintiff’s damages. The purpose of the statute, RCW 4.22.070, was to end the practice of compelling a single, well-financed defendant to pay all of the damages that resulted mainly from the fault of other defendants who were less able to pay a judgment.

The Humes decision is consistent with what the Legislature tried to accomplish when it adopted this statute as part of the 1986 Tort Reform Act. The Court of Appeals wisely avoided plaintiffs’ attempt to undermine that legislative intent under the guise of “interpreting” this statute.