American Motorcycle Association v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County
20 Cal. 3d 578, 578 P.2d 899, 146 Cal. Rptr. 182 (1978)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
California's adoption of comparative negligence modifies the common law equitable indemnity doctrine to permit a concurrent tortfeasor to seek partial indemnity from other tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis, but it does not abolish the doctrine of joint and several liability.
Facts:
- Glen Gregos, a teenager, participated in a novice cross-country motorcycle race.
- The American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and the Viking Motorcycle Club sponsored and managed the race.
- During the race, Glen Gregos crashed and suffered a crushed spine, resulting in permanent paralysis.
- Gregos alleged the race organizers were negligent in designing and supervising the race, failing to provide adequate instructions, and allowing it to become overcrowded.
- AMA alleged that Gregos's parents were also negligent by knowingly consenting to their son's participation in a dangerous sport and failing to properly supervise him.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Glen Gregos sued defendant American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and others in California superior court (trial court).
- AMA answered the complaint, asserting Gregos's own negligence as a defense.
- AMA moved for leave to file a cross-complaint for indemnity against Gregos's parents, who were not parties to the original action.
- The trial court denied AMA's motion to file the cross-complaint.
- AMA petitioned the Court of Appeal (intermediate appellate court) for a writ of mandate to compel the trial court to accept the cross-complaint.
- The Court of Appeal granted the peremptory writ of mandate in favor of AMA.
- The California Supreme Court granted a hearing to decide the issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does California's adoption of a 'pure' comparative negligence system warrant modifying the common law equitable indemnity doctrine to permit a defendant to seek partial indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis?
Opinions:
Majority - Tobriner, J.
Yes. While California's adoption of comparative negligence does not abolish the doctrine of joint and several liability, it does require a modification of the common law equitable indemnity doctrine to allow for partial indemnity among concurrent tortfeasors based on their comparative fault. First, the court rejected the abolition of joint and several liability, reasoning that it plays a vital role in ensuring an injured plaintiff can obtain full recovery, even if one tortfeasor is insolvent. The court held that a tortfeasor's negligence being a proximate cause of an indivisible injury makes them liable for the entire injury, regardless of others' fault. Second, the court determined that the principles of allocating liability based on fault, established in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., require replacing the 'all-or-nothing' equitable indemnity doctrine. The old doctrine, based on vague distinctions like 'active' versus 'passive' negligence, was inequitable. A new rule of 'comparative indemnity' allows liability among tortfeasors to be apportioned in direct proportion to their respective fault, which aligns with Li's core objective. Finally, the court concluded that existing contribution statutes do not preclude this common law development and that a defendant may file a cross-complaint to bring in a previously unnamed party to seek such partial indemnity.
Dissenting - Clark, J.
No. The majority's decision to retain joint and several liability fundamentally contradicts and repudiates the core principle of Li v. Yellow Cab Co., which is that liability should be governed by the extent of fault. By retaining joint and several liability, the majority creates a system where a minimally negligent defendant (e.g., 10% at fault) can be forced to pay the entire share of an insolvent, more negligent co-defendant. This is directly contrary to Li's mandate that liability be borne 'in direct proportion to their respective fault.' The dissent argues that the loss from an insolvent or unavailable tortfeasor should be apportioned between the negligent plaintiff and the solvent defendants according to their relative degrees of fault. The majority's approach undermines the entire system of comparative fault, creating perverse incentives during litigation and settlement. The dissent concludes that the entire project of apportioning fault is inherently arbitrary and unworkable for the judiciary, and such a significant policy change should be left to the Legislature.
Analysis:
This landmark case fundamentally reshaped multi-party tort litigation in California by creating a hybrid system following the adoption of pure comparative negligence. By retaining joint and several liability, the court prioritized the plaintiff's ability to achieve full compensation, placing the risk of a tortfeasor's insolvency on the other solvent tortfeasors rather than the injured party. However, it simultaneously created a more equitable system among defendants by establishing the doctrine of 'comparative indemnity,' replacing the harsh 'all-or-nothing' rule with apportionment based on relative fault. This decision established the framework for how fault and liability are allocated in virtually all complex tort cases in California, balancing plaintiff recovery with equitable loss distribution among defendants.
Unlock the full brief for American Motorcycle Association v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County