About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [i] (Spring 2026)

handle is hein.ali/restt5040 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2026 Citations oTORTs 3D: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY TOPIC 1. BASIC RULES OF COMPARATIVE RESPONSIBILITY § 8. Factors for Assigning Shares of Responsibility N.Y.Sup.Ct.App.Div.2025. Subsec. (c) and illus. 2 cit. in sup. Motorcyclists who were struck and injured by another vehicle in an intersection between two state roads sued state, alleging that it knew or should have known of visual obstructions at the intersection and failed to adequately respond to the dangerous condition created by them. After a bench trial, the trial court found state 75% liable and the other driver 25% liable. This court affirmed, holding that the other driver's negligence was not a superseding cause that precluded state's liability. The court declined to reapportion state's fault so that it was 50% or less responsible, such that it was only liable for motorcyclists' noneconomic loss to that extent, citing Restatement Third of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 8 in reasoning that state failed to study and adequately remedy the known dangerous condition of the intersection, and that the other driver's negligence in failing to yield the right-of-way was a normal and foreseeable consequence of the situation created by state's negligence. Hunt v. State, 232 N.Y.S.3d 658, 663. TOPIC 2. LIABILITY OF MULTIPLE TORTFEASORS FOR INDIVISIBLE HARM § 10. Effect of Joint and Several Liability Conn.2025. Rptrs' Note to com. (f) quot. in ftn. After satisfying a judgment in an underlying action filed by a patient for injuries she sustained when her foot touched a heat lamp during an acupuncture session, heat lamp manufacturer and its insured filed an action against acupuncturist, seeking contribution based on the jury in the underlying action finding that acupuncturist was 20% responsible for patient's injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for manufacturer and insurer. This court affirmed, holding that the term party within the meaning of state statutes governing comparative responsibility and actions for contribution under the Connecticut Product Liability Act meant all defendants in the action. The court noted that the Act's goal of combatting the increased cost of product-liability insurance and the prices of consumer and industrial goods was consistent with the goal articulated in Restatement COPYRIGHT C2026 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.