Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.
646 P.2d 579 (N.M. App. 1982) (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under a pure comparative negligence system, the common law doctrine of joint and several liability is abolished. A defendant is only liable for damages in proportion to their own percentage of fault as determined by the fact-finder, who may apportion fault among all concurrent tortfeasors, including non-parties.
Facts:
- An unknown driver in a lead car signaled a right turn, then abruptly turned into and pulled out of a service station.
- Plaintiff Jane Bartlett, driving the car directly behind the lead car, slammed on her brakes to avoid a collision.
- A truck driven by Defendant's employee, which was traveling behind Bartlett's car, was unable to stop in time and skidded into the rear of Bartlett's vehicle.
- The driver of the lead car that initiated the sequence of events was never identified.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs sued Defendant in trial court on a theory of negligence.
- The trial court instructed the jury to determine the percentage of fault of the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the unknown third-party driver.
- The jury returned a special verdict finding plaintiffs' damages were $100,000, plaintiffs were 0% negligent, defendant was 30% negligent, and the unknown driver was 70% negligent.
- Plaintiffs filed a motion requesting the trial court enter a judgment against Defendant for the full $100,000 based on joint and several liability.
- The trial court denied the plaintiffs' motion and instead ordered a new trial, concluding that joint and several liability should apply.
- Defendant, as the appellant, was granted an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeals of New Mexico to review the trial court's order for a new trial.
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 the adoption of a pure comparative negligence system abolish the common law doctrine of joint and several liability, thereby limiting a tortfeasor's liability to their judicially determined percentage of fault?
Opinions:
Majority - Wood, Judge
No. The adoption of a pure comparative negligence system abolishes the doctrine of joint and several liability. The court reasoned that the fundamental principle of pure comparative negligence is to apportion liability in direct proportion to fault, holding a person responsible only for the harm they actually caused. The common law justifications for joint and several liability, such as the concept of an 'indivisible injury' and the 'unity of the cause of action,' are obsolete technicalities that are inconsistent with a modern system that can and does apportion fault. The court rejected the policy argument that plaintiffs should be favored by shifting the risk of an insolvent or unknown tortfeasor to a co-defendant, finding no logical basis to do so when a plaintiff already bears that risk in a single-defendant case. Therefore, fairness dictates that each party, including non-party tortfeasors, must be held liable only for their respective percentage of fault.
Analysis:
This decision fundamentally alters tort law in pure comparative negligence jurisdictions by shifting from joint and several liability to a system of pure several liability. It establishes that the core purpose of comparative negligence is not merely to allow contributorily negligent plaintiffs to recover, but to align liability precisely with fault for all parties. The ruling places the risk of an insolvent, immune, or unknown tortfeasor onto the plaintiff rather than a co-defendant, eliminating the 'deep pocket' advantage for plaintiffs. This precedent solidifies a fault-based system where each defendant's liability is capped at their apportioned share of responsibility, impacting litigation strategy and settlement negotiations in multi-defendant cases.
Unlock the full brief for Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, Inc.