About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

General-A. [1] (1943)

handle is hein.ali/hrbor605318 and id is 1 raw text is: ARTiuR L.Amxurs ATTORNEY AT LAW J OXJE SD RO 0, lrANSAS February 5, 1943, Aerican Law Institute, Publishers _ , St. Paul, Minnesota Re: Various plaintiffs v. Ellis, White, et al. SAct 315 of 1941 page 788,of Arkansas is, the model Joint Tort-feasors Act_ ihave before me the Commissioners notes of the-American Law Institute and the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws which appear in the handbook of the National Conference of Commissioners for-1939 at page 243. We have a :problem upon which not only the attorneys but the court deSifre further information. A very disastrous wreck resulting from collision of transport trucks damaged or demolished five different moto: vehicles killed one man, seriously injured three other persons and resulted in much property damage. Four separate suits resulted --n three different jurisdictions. The matter was-complicated by the fact that. a suit filed by one joint tort-feasor against the other was I rst- tried resulting in a small verdict against the joint tort-feasor ;1aiadedefendant- in that case. Thereafter the death suit was tried in -ap different jurisdiction resulting in a verdict for $10,000, the jury apportioning the- degree of negligence between the joint tort-feasors fift -fiftY- : - . _Thereafter in a still different jurisdiction a consolidated suit was triedagainst both joint tort-feasors one being for personal injuries and property damage and the other being for property damage only. A verdict of. $8,000 was returned against both tort-feasors on account of the - personal injuries- and property damage suit -and of $4,00 on account of the sep rate property damage case. In these latter cases tne jury apportioned the degree of negligence 65% against the joint tort-feasor who had preyiously obtained the judgment against the other tort-feasor. Now in each case the joint tort:feasor who obtained the judgment against the other tort-feasor pleaded and urged res judicata and estoppel by judgentodn the consolidated cases last above mentioned7 4s a result of the argument on that Motion- in the death case/an alternative prayer was made to abate or charge over any judgment which might be rendered to the extent of the amount of the judgment previously Obtained against the joint tort-feasor by the others tort-feasor. While the court permitted the matter to go to the jury on the- negligence of both tort-feasors action was deferred on these Motions. that JWl1 arE familiar with th@-ya-rious annotations in A.L.R. including that R4at page )21 and in 141 Al.L.R. at page 1208. Possibly the New York case of Jung v. Allison mentioned in the first annotation comes the nearest meeting our situation. However, I do not know the provisions of the New York Act. I assume since that case was tied in- 1935 that possibly the Ne;. Ybrk Act is- the Uniform Joint Obligations-

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most