Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
- Homepage »
- Torts »
- Negligence
8. The plaintiff's best argument in opposition to the defendants' motions would be that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's entire harm, because
The plaintiff brought an action for damages against the student and the doctor. At the close of the plaintiff's evidence, as outlined above, each of the defendants moved for a directed verdict in his favor on the ground that the plaintiff had failed to produce evidence on which the jury could determine how much damage each defendant had caused. The jurisdiction adheres to the common law rules regarding joint and several liability.
Six months after the first accident, the plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by a car driven by a doctor. The collision resulted from the doctor's negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff's physician found that the second collision had caused a general worsening of the plaintiff's condition, marked by a significant restriction of movement and muscle spasms in her back and neck. The physician believes the plaintiff's worsened condition is permanent, and he can find no basis for apportioning responsibility for her present worsened condition between the two automobile collisions.
The plaintiff was a passenger in a car that was struck in the rear by a car driven by a student. The collision resulted from the student's negligence in failing to keep a proper lookout. The plaintiff's physician found that the collision had aggravated a mild osteoarthritic condition in her lower back and had brought on similar, but new, symptoms in her neck and upper back.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Note that, though the question references motions «for a directed verdict,» they are more commonly called «motions for judgment as a matter of law» in modern rules.
B is incorrect. This answer choice correctly states an element of negligence (breach of a duty), but it does not assist the plaintiff as to her inability to prove how each defendant contributed to the plaintiff's injury.
C is incorrect. This answer choice does not respond to the problem the plaintiff faces: countering the defendants' argument that the plaintiff did not produce evidence as to how much damage each defendant had caused.
D is incorrect. The mere fact that the defendants are joint tortfeasors — meaning that two or more individuals contributed to the harm the plaintiff suffered — does not make them jointly and severally liable. If the harm could be apportioned between them, joint and several liability likely would not apply. There are situations in which joint and several liability could still apply despite the availability of apportionment, but the facts do not raise any such circumstance. Additionally, although this answer choice correctly identifies the issue as joint and several liability for the collective negligence of multiple tortfeasors, it essentially only restates the premise of the call of the question (that the defendants are joint and severally liable as joint tortfeasors): «The plaintiff's best argument in opposition to the defendants' motions would be that the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's entire harm, because the defendants are joint tortfeasors who aggravated the plaintiff's preexisting condition.» Thus, this answer choice adds virtually nothing new to the call of the question's foundation.