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

Case Citations [1] (April 2022 - August 2022)

handle is hein.ali/restt5033 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE TORTS 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 16. Effect of Partial Settlement on Jointly and Severally Liable Tortfeasors' Liability N.J.Super.2021. Cit. in sup.; com. (c) quot. in ftn.; com. (d) quot. in sup. After a patron tripped in a restaurant and fractured her ankle, which caused her to suffer a pulmonary embolism that resulted in her death a month later, patron's widow filed a claim for negligence against owners of the restaurant and a claim for medical malpractice against wife's healthcare providers. Widow settled with restaurant owners before trial, and the trial court granted healthcare providers' motion for a pro tanto credit based on the amount of the settlement. The court of appeals reversed on interlocutory appeal and remanded, citing Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 16 in concluding that a pro tanto credit for the non-settling defendants in a case involving successive tortfeasors was incompatible with the state's statutory allocation-of-fault scheme and case law. This court affirmed as modified and remanded for allocation of damages according to the two-step approach adopted in Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 26. Glassman v. Friedel, 265 A.3d 84, 90, 97, 101. TOPIC 3. CONTRIBUTION AND INDEMNITY § 22. Indemnity N.M.2021. Adopted in case cit. in sup.; subsec. (a) cit. and quot. in sup. Father of a minor patient who died in surgery filed a medical-malpractice action against medical facility, alleging that its surgeon breached his duty of care to patient; facility sought equitable indemnification against surgeon and his employer. After facility reached a settlement with father, in which it assigned its indemnification claim to father, the trial court denied surgeon's motion for partial summary judgment, finding that the assignment was not prohibited under the Medical Malpractice Act. The court of appeals reversed and remanded. This court in turn reversed and remanded, holding that the assignment would not result in double recovery for father in contravention of the legislative purposes of the Act. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 22 in reasoning that the maximum amount father could receive through indemnification was the amount facility actually paid him in its settlement agreement plus reasonable attorney's fees. Leger v. Leger, 503 P.3d 349, 354, 359. COPYRIGHT C2022 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America 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