Comments on: Deep pocket files: Ernst v. Chen’s Restaurant

By: Ted

Ted — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:54:26 +0000

In this case, it probably wouldn’t have made much of a difference; I suspect 25% of $15 million will equally bankrupt Chen’s. It still makes no sense to apportion fault between an intentional tortfeasor and one who was, at worst, mildly negligent. This isn’t the case of two hunters simultaneously firing carelessly.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Wed, 15 Feb 2006 10:26:45 +0000

No, that’s not what I said, but nice attempt at twisting it.

What I said is that the jury should be informed of the ramifications of joint and several liability, which amounts to the “assignment of responsibility” becoming a joke (that is, they assigned the restaurant %25, but in reality, that often becomes %100).

By: Donald

Donald — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 13:43:10 +0000

If that “makes the whole thing even worse,” then we ought to have a uniform rule: juries always find out who’s paying.

So plaintiff lawyers would be free to tell a jury about any applicable insurance policy. And in 1983 actions, we can dispense with the fiction that the individual defendant pays and inform the jury that s/he is actually indemnified by his or her public employer.

By: nevins

nevins — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 12:48:58 +0000

One of the Suzuki Sideflip lawsuits occured locally (St. Louis). The jury here found that the drrunken driver of the vehicle was 2% responsible for the rollover, the passenger/plaintiff 2% responsible for not wearing a seatbelt (in violation of state law) and the Suzuki corporation responsible for the rest.

The assignment of responsibility is an absurd excercise by the legal system.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Tue, 14 Feb 2006 10:44:08 +0000

“a jury found the restaurant 25% responsible for the accident, which puts Chen’s entirely on the $15.2 million damages hook under Rhode Island law, a detail the press account omits.”

I suspect that this is a detail that the jury wasn’t told, either, which makes the whole thing even worse (if that’s possible).