The state Supreme Court on Tuesday heard a much-anticipated argument in a challenge to the part of the 2005 tort reform package that requires juries to apportion liability in civil cases among all who may have harmed the plaintiffs.
The court weighed whether the apportionment rule should apply to premises liability suits, in which, for example, a robbery victim claims the owner of the property where the crime took place was negligent. Under the apportionment rule, the jury could hold the robber-who isn’t a defendant in the suit-90 percent responsible for the plaintiff’s damages, meaning the plaintiff would recover at best 10 percent of his damages.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
