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

Case Citations [1] (July 2017 through August 2018)

handle is hein.ali/restt5026 and id is 1 raw text is: TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 1. BASIC RULES OF COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY § 1. Issues and Causes of Action Addressed by This Restatement Fla.2017. Com. (c) quot. in sup. In an individual action arising from a decertified class action on behalf of all Florida smokers, estate of deceased smoker filed claims for fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to commit fraud by concealment against cigarette manufacturer. The trial court granted judgment for plaintiff and granted defendant's post-trial motion to reduce the compensatory-damages award to reflect plaintiff s comparative fault. The court of appeals affirmed. This court reversed in part, holding that the Florida comparative-fault statute did not apply to plaintiff's award, because the award resulted from a finding of liability on both negligence and intentional torts and plaintiff had not waived the intentional-tort exception. Quoting Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 1, Comment c, the court explained that intentional torts were not reduced by comparative fault at common law, and declined to interpret the comparative-fault statute broadly so that plaintiff's comparative fault reduced defendant's liability for intentional torts. Schoeff v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, 232 So.3d 294, 304. TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 13. Vicarious Liability Nev.2017. Cit. in sup. Patient and her minor son brought a medical-malpractice claim against hospital where son was delivered by a doctor who worked for hospital as an independent contractor, alleging that son suffered permanent and debilitating injuries as a result of the doctor's negligence. The trial court granted partial summary judgment for hospital, finding that hospital was not vicariously liable for the doctor's actions under a state statute that abrogated joint and several liability of a medical provider in an action for injury or death against the medical provider based on professional negligence. Reversing that portion of the decision and remanding, this court held that vicarious liability survived in the several- liability scheme created by the statute, which was silent regarding vicarious liability. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 13 in explaining that vicarious liability applied regardless of whether joint-and-several liability or several liability was the governing rule, and that an employer could be vicariously liable even in a several-liability scheme. McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center, 408 P.3d 149, 152. For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.

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