Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Under joint and several liability or (in the U.S.) all sums, a plaintiff (claimant) is entitled to claim an obligation incurred by any of the promisors from all of them jointly and also from each of them individually. Thus the plaintiff has more than one cause of action: if she pursues one promisor and he fails to pay the sum due, her action is ...
Decided November 17, 1948; Full case name: Charles A. Summers v. Howard W. Tice, et al. Citation(s) 33 Cal.2d 80 199 P.2d 1: Holding; When a plaintiff suffers a single indivisible injury, for which the negligence of each of several potential tortfeasors could have been a but-for cause, but only one of which could have actually been the cause, all the potential tortfeasors are jointly and ...
In situations where joint and several liability is engaged, contribution claims between parties are governed by the operation of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, but, in addition there remain several equitable principles developed by the chancery division of the English Courts that are thought to remain in effect. [3]
The employers were joint and severally liable against the plaintiff (though amongst themselves they could sue one another for different contributions). It was wrong to deny the claimants any remedy at all. Therefore, the appropriate test of causation is whether the employers had materially increased the risk of harm to the claimants.
The Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978 [1] (c. 47) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.. The act repealed the relevant common law and made new provision for contribution between persons who are jointly or severally, or both jointly and severally, liable for the same damage and in certain other similar cases where two or more persons have paid or may be required to pay ...
Public health experts are warning of a ‘quad-demic’ this winter. Here’s where flu, COVID, RSV, and norovirus are spreading
It’s been five months, and Isabella's parents say she still hasn’t gotten her Medicaid back even though her brother — same family, same income — never lost his.
The defendants claimed the individual defendants in those cases are "jointly and severally liable" with the defendants in this case, and, citing Bouchat v. Champion Prods., Inc., [26] argued that the language of 17 USC 504 meant to group together all actions relating to infringement of a given set of works. [31]