(1985); Kathleen Coughenour, Comment, The Right to Recover Damages: Tort Reform and the Arizona Constitution, 20 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 227 (1987); Armando Garcia-Mendoza, Comment, Tort Law: Joint and Several Liability Under Comparative Negligence - Forcing Old Doctrines on New Concepts, 40 U. FLA. L. REV. 469 (1988); Mary A. Laudick, Note, Status and Trends in State Product Liability Law, 14 J. LEGIS. 242 (1987); R. Michael Lindsey, Note, Compensation, Fairness, and the Costs of Accidents --Should Pennsylvania Modify or Abrogate the Rule of Joint and Several Liability Among Concurrently Negligent Tortfeasors? 91 Dick. L. Rev. (1987); Nancy L. Manzer, Note, 1986 Tort Reform Legislation: A Systematic Evaluation of Caps on Damages and Limitations on Joint and Several Liability, 73 CORNELL L. REV. 628 (1988); Edward J. McBride, Note, Fair Enough? Modifying the Rule of Joint and Several Liability in New Jersey, 20 RUTGERS L.J. 175 (1988).
(n203) See PROSSER & KEETON, supra note 4, at 336 (discussing the purported origin of the rule in the 1799 English ease of Merryweather v. Nixan).
(n204) Id. at 338-40 (discussing the various state statutes "which to a greater or lesser extent permit contribution among tortfeasors").
(n205) See Wade, supra note 158, at 195-99; Wright, supra note 158, at 1185; Garcia-Mendoza, supra note 202, at 471 (discussing Florida's rationale in retaining the joint and several doctrine by relying on its recently enacted Contribution Act).
(n206) See Mednick, supra note 196, at 120-21.
(n207) See American Motorcycle Ass'n v. Superior Court, 578 P.2d 899, 906 (Cal. 1978); Granelli, supra note 158, at 71 ("The rationale is basic fairness. 'Who should suffer, the innocent victim or one of the wrongdoers who can afford to pay?"' quoting James Frayne, executive director of The California Trial Lawyers Association.).
(n208) See Pressler and Schiefer, supra note 158, at 653 n.7 (capsulizing eases in which "deep pocket" defendants are forced to foot the bill for defendants and plaintiffs more at fault in causing the plaintiffs' injuries); Steenson, supra note 158, at 484 (noting that the emergence of comparative fault with its "findings based on percentages of fault also highlight the perceived injustices of the rule of joint and several liability" that were formally "obscured by general verdicts and pro rata liability of joint tortfeasors."); Manzer, supra note 202, at 636 & n.49.
(n209) Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc., 646 P.2d 579, 585 (N.M. 1982).
(n210) Wade, supra note 158.
(n211) Id. at 194.