Lexplug logoLexplug

Holtz v. Holder

Supreme Court of Arizona
418 P.2d 584, 101 Ariz. 247 (1966)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When two or more independent tortfeasors' separate negligent acts combine to produce a single, indivisible injury that cannot be apportioned among them, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable for the entire harm.


Facts:

  • Cynthia A. Holtz was stopped at a red light in her vehicle, in the lane nearest the center line.
  • James E. Holder was stopped in the lane immediately to Holtz's right.
  • The road ahead narrowed to a single lane due to construction dirt piles.
  • When the light turned green, both Holtz and Holder proceeded, and their vehicles collided.
  • The collision forced Holtz's car across the center line, where it struck a pickup truck and came to rest.
  • Approximately five to ten minutes later, a Carnation Company milk truck, attempting to pass the scene, struck Holtz's stationary vehicle.
  • Holtz sustained injuries, but medical testimony established it was medically impossible to determine which impact caused which specific injuries.

Procedural Posture:

  • Cynthia Holtz sued James Holder and Carnation Company in an Arizona trial court for negligence.
  • The case was tried before a jury.
  • The trial court instructed the jury that if an injury could have resulted from one of two causes, but only one could be attributed to a specific defendant's negligence, the plaintiff could not recover from that defendant.
  • The jury returned a general verdict in favor of both defendants, Holder and Carnation Company.
  • Plaintiff Cynthia Holtz (appellant) appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Arizona.

Locked

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 law hold two independent tortfeasors, whose separate negligent acts cause a single, indivisible injury, jointly and severally liable when the harm cannot be apportioned between them?


Opinions:

Majority - Udall, J.

Yes. Two or more independent tortfeasors may be held jointly and severally liable for the entire harm suffered by a plaintiff if their separate acts of negligence produce a single, indivisible injury that cannot be apportioned. The court adopts the 'single injury' rule, reasoning that as a matter of policy, it is more desirable for an innocent plaintiff to recover fully than to allow negligent defendants to escape liability because the plaintiff cannot meet the impossible burden of proving which defendant caused which portion of the harm. This decision modifies prior Arizona precedent in White v. Arizona Eastern R. Co., which required concerted action for joint liability, by establishing that joint and several liability can also be imposed in multiple collision cases with indivisible injuries, even without concerted action. The court also found that the trial court committed reversible error by giving a mandatory instruction on contributory negligence, which is a question reserved for the jury under the Arizona Constitution.



Analysis:

This decision significantly changed Arizona tort law by adopting the 'single indivisible injury' rule, aligning the state with the majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement of Torts. It shifts the burden of apportioning harm away from the innocent plaintiff and onto the negligent defendants in situations where multiple, independent torts result in an inseparable injury. This precedent makes it substantially easier for plaintiffs in complex, multi-impact accident cases to achieve a full recovery, as they are no longer required to prove the exact share of harm caused by each individual defendant.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Holtz v. Holder (1966) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Holtz v. Holder