X hits on this document

219 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

70 / 90

(n241) Id. at 135. The defendant argued that Kansas had abrogated joint and several liability in comparative fault eases.

(n242) Id. at 136.

(n243) PROSSER & KEETON, supra note 4, at 462. The discussion refers to the contributory negligence defense where the defendant has acted intentionally, but the principle has been extended to comparative fault. See Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W.2d 168, 175 & n.7 (Minn. 1936); Schulze v. Kleeber, 103 N.W.2d 560, 564 (Wis. 1960).

(n244) 590 A.2d at 231.

(n245) Id. at 231.

(n246) Id. at 227.

(n247) Id. at 227 (quoting Suter v. San Angelo Foundry & Mach. Co., 406 A.2d 140, 148 n.6 (N.J. 1979)).

(n248) Id. at 232-33.

(n249) Actually, the statute provides that joint and several liability is abrogated when the defendant is found to be 20% or less at fault, and is abrogated only with respect to noneconomic loss for defendants found more than 20% but less than 60% at fault. See supra note 223.

(n250) Id. at 233.

(n251) Id. at 233.

(n252) 461 A.2d 138, 152.

(n253) 461 A.2d 138, 152 (N.J. 1983).

(n254) See supra note 155 and accompanying text.

(n255) 590 A.2d at 321-32.

(n256) 388 N.W.2d 908 (Wis. 1986).

(n257) Id. at 911.

(n258) Id.

(n259) 159 Cal. Rptr. 778 (Cal. Ct. App. 1980).

(n260) Id. at 781. Accord Braswell v. People's Credit Union, 602 A.2d 510 (R.I. 1992).

69

Document info
Document views219
Page views219
Page last viewedMon Dec 05 19:04:54 UTC 2016
Pages90
Paragraphs870
Words44164

Comments