Gehres v. City of Phoenix
1987 Ariz. App. LEXIS 605, 156 Ariz. 484, 753 P.2d 174 (1987)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The doctrine of joint and several liability, which allows an injured plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any solvent tortfeasor regardless of their apportioned percentage of fault, is compatible with a comparative negligence system. The risk that a co-tortfeasor is insolvent falls on the other culpable defendants, not the innocent plaintiff.
Facts:
- On May 1, 1984, Lawrence Speck consumed approximately four alcoholic drinks at the Backstage Restaurant.
- Speck then drove to Vinnie's Night Club, where he was served at least six additional alcoholic drinks.
- Around 1:00 a.m. the following morning, a Phoenix police officer observed Speck's erratic driving and attempted to initiate a traffic stop.
- Speck fled from the officer, leading to a high-speed chase at speeds between 90 and 100 miles per hour.
- During the pursuit, Speck's vehicle collided with the rear of a vehicle occupied by Violet Gehres, killing both Gehres and Speck.
- A post-mortem examination revealed Speck had a blood alcohol content of .27%.
- Speck's estate was subsequently determined to be insolvent.
Procedural Posture:
- The husband and daughter of Violet Gehres filed a complaint in Maricopa County Superior Court (trial court) against the City of Phoenix, Vinnie’s, Inc., and the estate of Lawrence Speck.
- The case was tried before a jury on comparative negligence principles.
- The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiffs, apportioning fault as 95% to Speck, 3% to Vinnie's, and 2% to the City of Phoenix.
- The trial court entered a judgment imposing joint and several liability against all defendants for the total award of $577,600.
- The City of Phoenix and Vinnie's, Inc. (appellants) appealed the judgment to this intermediate appellate court.
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 application of joint and several liability, which requires solvent tortfeasors found minimally at fault (2% and 3%) to pay the entire judgment when the primary tortfeasor (95% at fault) is insolvent, violate the solvent tortfeasors' due process and equal protection rights?
Opinions:
Majority - Roll, Judge
No. The application of joint and several liability in this case does not violate the defendants' due process or equal protection rights. The court reasoned that Arizona's adoption of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) and comparative negligence principles did not abolish the common law doctrine of joint and several liability. The court affirmed the long-standing policy principle that it is better for an innocent plaintiff to be fully compensated, even if one tortfeasor pays more than their proportional share, than for multiple wrongdoers to escape liability. Citing precedent like Holtz v. Holder, the court concluded that the financial risk of an insolvent co-defendant lies with the other wrongdoers, not the plaintiff. The court also rejected the argument that the police chase was an intervening, superseding cause of the accident, finding it was a foreseeable consequence of Vinnie's serving alcohol to an intoxicated person.
Analysis:
This case affirms the continued viability of joint and several liability in a comparative fault jurisdiction, prior to legislative reform in Arizona. It reinforces the legal policy of prioritizing the full compensation of an innocent plaintiff over a strict apportionment of payment among tortfeasors. The decision highlights the 'deep pocket' problem, where minimally-at-fault but solvent defendants can bear the entire financial burden of a judgment when the primary wrongdoer is insolvent. This ruling underscores a significant tension in tort law that ultimately prompted the Arizona legislature to abolish joint and several liability in most cases in 1987, a year after this verdict.
