 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co.12/29/2000
ed on fault seeking to recover damages for injury or death to a person or harm to property, contributory fault chargeable to the claimant diminishes proportionally the amount awarded as compensatory damages for the injury attributable to the claimant's contributory fault, but does not bar recovery.[ ]
The Act defined "fault" as
acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent, reckless, or intentional toward the person or property of the actor or others, or that subject a person to strict tort liability. The term also includes breach of warranty, unreasonable assumption of risk not constituting an enforceable express consent, misuse of product for which the defendant otherwise would be liable, and unreasonable failure to avoid injury or to mitigate damages. Legal requirements of causal relation apply both to fault as the basis for liability and to contributory fault.[ ]
The question before us is whether these two provisions modified the existing case law on comparative negligence in products liability cases. We conclude that they did.
The Act clearly applies to strict products liability cases. The Act applies to tort actions "based on fault." Fault is defined to include, counter-intuitively, "acts or omissions . . . that subject a person to strict liability." Products liability cases in Alaska are typically based on a strict liability theory. Thus the Act applies to strict products liability actions.
The Act's definition of comparative fault is broader than the comparative fault recognized in pre-1986 strict products liability cases. Our pre-1986 products liability cases limit comparative fault to instances of product misuse and unreasonable assumption of risk. But, in addition to "misuse of product" and "unreasonable assumption" of risk, the Act also defines "fault" as including "acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent reckless . . . ." Thus, the Act modifies the pre-1986 products liability case law by expanding the type of conduct that will trigger a proportional reduction of damages to include ordinary negligence -- "acts or omissions that are in any measure negligent."
The Act's modification of comparative negligence in strict products liability cases reflects a general trend occurring across the nation. The recently published Third Restatement of Torts, Products Liability, observes that a "strong majority" of courts now apply comparative negligence principles in strict products liability cases. Moreover, most of these courts do not limit comparative negligence to instances of product misuse or unreasonable and voluntary assumption of risk. Instead, they allow a plaintiff's ordinary negligence to constitute comparative fault.
In addition, legislatures in other states have enacted tort reform statutes similar to the one here, incorporating a universal definition of "contributory fault" for all tort cases, including strict products liability cases. Courts in other jurisdictions have generally interpreted these statutes as incorporating an ordinary negligence framework into the comparative fault analysis in strict liability cases.
Smith argues that the Alaska Legislature did not intend the Act to modify the existing products liability case law on comparative negligence. But Smith's only support for this argument is the difference between the definition of contributory fault contained in the Uniform Comparative Fault Act -- the model for Alaska's tort reform -- and the definition actually adopted by the Alaska Legislature.
The Uniform Comparative Fault Act defines contributory fault as follows:
In an action based on fault seeking to recover damages for inj
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Alaska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|