Joint and Several Liability A Faulty and Unfair System

1
The Facts on Fabre

• The abolishment of joint and several liability
  will have NO IMPACT on the Fabre v. Marin
  ruling.
• The so-called Fabre fix is an irrelevant
  argument being made by the Trial Bar. In
  reality, it offers no solution to meaningful
  legal reform the repeal of joint and
  several liability does.
• The Florida Supreme Court ruling came from two
  separate automobile accident cases, each
  involving a passenger plaintiff in a vehicle
  driven by his/her spouse.
• At the trial court level, each spouse was found
  to be somewhat responsible for injuries
  suffered in the two accidents.
• Differing opinions were issued by the 3rd and 5th
  District Court of Appeals (DCA).
• The 3rd DCA found that the driver-spouse was not
  named as a defendant, therefore could not be
  apportioned damages.
• However, the 5th DCA concluded damages could be
  apportioned to any participant in the
  accident, including the unnamed spouse.
• The Florida Supreme Court ruled with the 5th DCA.
  The spouse, as an accident participant,
  could be held responsible in the judgment based
  on percentage of fault.
• The conclusion a person does not have to be a
  named party in a lawsuit in order to
  be apportioned responsibility  for some or all of
  the damages. The defendant must prove the
  unnamed party contributed to the injury.
• Fabre applies only to negligence cases, not to
  criminal actions or vicarious liability.