Torts
4/25/2016
Prof.Duncan
AfterConey(pp.788-91inyourcasebook),aspartoftortreforminIllinois,
jointandseveralliabilityhasbeenmodifiedbystatuteasfollows:
JointLiability.[I]nactionsonaccountofbodilyinjuryordeathorphysical
damagetoproperty,basedonnegligence,orproductliabilitybasedonstrict
tortliability,alldefendantsfoundliablearejointlyandseverallyliablefor
plaintiff’spastandfuturemedicalandmedically-relatedexpenses.Any
defendantwhosefault,asdeterminedbythetrieroffact,islessthan25%of
thetotalfaultattributabletotheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,
andanythirdpartydefendantwhocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shall
beseverallyliableforallotherdamages.Anydefendantwhosefault,as
determinedbythetrieroffact,is25%orgreaterofthetotalfaultattributable
totheplaintiff,thedefendantssuedbytheplaintiff,andanythirdparty
defendantswhocouldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff,shallbejointlyand
severallyliableforallotherdamages.
ILL.ST.CH.735§5/2-1117.
Ineachofthefollowingsituations,howmuchmayPlaintiffrecoverfromeach
Defendant?
a.
JuryreturnsverdictinfavorofPlaintifffor$200,000($100,000pastand
futuremedicalexpensesand$100,000pastandfuturepainandsuffering).In
attributingfault,juryfindsthatDefendant1was25%atfault,Defendant2
was50%atfault,andanunknown,nonpartywas25%atfault.
[Uptoamaximumof$200,000fromeitherorbothDefendant1&
Defendant2]
b.
JuryreturnsverdictinfavorofPlaintifffor$200,000($100,000pastand
futuremedicalexpensesand$100,000forpastandfuturepainandsuffering).
Inattributingfault,juryfindsthatDefendant1was10%atfault,Defendant2
was25%atfault,andanunknown,nonpartywas65%atfault.
[Uptoatotalof$100,000fromeitherorbothDefendant1&Defendant
2(jointandseveralliabilityformedicalexpenses);anadditional
$10,000fromDefendant1(severallyforpainandsuffering);andupto
$100,000fromDefendant2(jointandseveralliabilityforpainand
suffering)]
c.
Shouldthenonparty’sunavailabilityduetoimmunitychangetheoutcomein
eithercase?
Dependsonwhethertheterm“couldhavebeensuedbytheplaintiff”
shouldincludeimmuneparties.Ifaparty’simmunitymeansthatit
couldnothavebeensued,thenthenonparty’sapportionmentoffault
wouldnotbepartofthecomparisonofthefaultofPlaintiff,Defendant1,
andDefendant2.