(126) Although the trial court ruled that they were each entitled to only $50,000 due to an offset from the plaintiffs' recovery from the tortfeasor
, the Supreme Court of Missouri reversed, finding that the offset provision was ambiguous.
address the action of one tortfeasor
did not eliminate or reduce the tortfeasor
's liability for damages
obligation from the delictual obligation of the tortfeasor
. If the loss
(26) The Court suggested that this could apply not only where the multiple tortfeasors
are all defendants but also where one tortfeasor
was a third party (id.
The Supreme Court held that a contract between an injured party and its insurer is independent, and a tortfeasor
cannot reduce its amount of damages owed through what is already paid by the insurer.
(33) He suggested they would force a potential tortfeasor
to take efficient care.
The third party would take this into account and decide what percentage of the cost of the elimination of the nuisance will be imposed on the tortfeasor
and what percentage will be imposed in the first phase on the victim, with the rest to be funded ex post.
1976): "Strict liability means negligence as a matter of law or negligence per se, the effect of which is to remove the burden from the user of proving specific acts of negligence." What about the varied liabilities of a tortfeasor
who intentionally injured a plaintiff and another who breached its duty to protect the plaintiff from the intentional wrongdoer?
Simultaneously, a large majority of jurisdictions and the Restatement of Torts disallow punitive damages recoveries following the death of the tortfeasor
. (5) Courts' stated rationale for this rule of nonsurvivability is that neither of the two primary aims of punitive damages--punishment or deterrence--is served when the defendant dies before damages can be imposed.
The first considers the tension, in the context of religious observance that make the victim particularly liable to suffer certain harms, between the responsibility of the tortfeasor
to take his victim as he finds him and the responsibility of the victim to mitigate his damages.
Historically, subrogation was established as an equitable principle allowing an insurer who has indemnified an insured "to stand in the shoes of the insured's claim" for damages against a tortfeasor
. (1) Today, subrogation often centers on a conventional approach, flowing from a contract (2) or is statutorily driven, governed by the terms of a statute.