Justia Lawyer Rating
AV Preeminent badge
Avvo badge
Super Lawyers badge
American Association for Justice
Million Dollar Advocates Forum

Survey by State of Apportionment of Fault in Inadequate Security Cases

Matkin v. Smith, 643 So. 2d 949 (Ala. 1994).
ALASKA STAT. § 09.17.080 (Supp. 1994).
Carriere v. Cominco Alaska, Inc., 823 F. Supp. 680 (D. Alaska 1993); Robinson v. U-Haul Co., 785 F. Supp. 1378 (D. Alaska 1992); Borg-Warner Corp. v. Avsco Corp., 850 P.2d 628 (Alaska 1993).
Unsettled Wash. Rev. Code v. Avco Corp., 850 P.2d 628 (Alaska 1993).
ArizonaYes, except when the defendants act in concert or when the actions relate to hazardous waste. ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 12-2506 (1994).Yes.
ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 12-2506 (1994); Dietz v. General Electric Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991).
See 961 P.2d 449; Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix, 1996 WL 577564 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, Oct. 8, 1996).
ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-61-201 (Michie 1987).
Bill C. Harris Constr. v. Powers, 554 S.W.2d 332 (Ark. 1977); FDIC v. DeLoitte & Touche, 834 F. Supp. 1129 (E.D. Ark. 1992).
CaliforniaYes, except for economic damages. CAL. CIV. CODE §§ 1431-1431.2 (West 1980 & Supp. 1995).Yes.
DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 828 P.2d 140 (Cal. 1992).
Weidenfeller v. Star & Garter, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d 14 (Cal. Ct. App. 1991).
ColoradoYes, except when the defendants act in concert. COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-21-111.5 (West 1987).Yes.
COLO. REV. STAT. ANN. § 13-21-111.5 (West 1987).
Harvey v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 938 P.2d 34 (1998).
ConnecticutYes, except in products liability actions. CONN. GEN. STAT. ANN. §§ 52-672h(c), 52-572o (West 1991).Yes.
Caman v. City of Stamford, 746 F. Supp. 248 (D. Conn. 1990).
Eskin V. Castiglia 253 Conn. 516 (Conn. 2000); Cf. Bhinder v. Sun Co., Inc. 717 A. 2d 202 (1998), Ashe v. Konover Management, 1994 Conn. Lexis 1598 (Super. Ct. June 22, 1994).
Medical Ctr. v. Mullins, 637 A.2d 6 (Del. 1994).
District of ColumbiaNo.
Mozie v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 623 A.2d 607 (D.C. 1993).
FloridaYes, except for economic damages if the defendant's fault is equal to or greater than the plaintiff's fault, or if damages do not exceed $25,000. FLA. STAT. ANN. § 768.81(3) (West 1986).Yes.
Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993).
Merrill Crossings Associates v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1997).
GA. CODE ANN. § 51-12-33 (1994).
UnsettledUnsettled GA. CODE ANN. § 51-12-33 (1994).
Except for economic damages, intentional torts, environmental pollution, toxic and asbestos-related torts, aircraft accidents, strict and products liability, or motor vehicle accidents. HAWAII REV. STAT. § 663-10.9 (Michie 1996).
(for comparative negligence determination). HAWAII REV. STAT. § 663-31 (Michie 1996).
Ozaki v. Assoc. of Apart. Owners of Discovery Bay, 954 P. 2d 652 (1998)
Except when the defendants act in concert or when the action involves hazardous waste or pharmaceutical or medical products. IDAHO CODE § 6-803 (1990).
(for comparative negligence determination). IDAHO CODE § 6-802 (1990); Pocatello Industrial Park v. Steel West, 621 P.2d 399 (Idaho 1980); Beitzel v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 827 P.2d 1160 (Idaho 1992).
Unsettled IDAHO CODE §§ 6-802, 6-803 (1990).
Joint and several liability for non-medical damages; defendants are severally liable for all other damages if they are less than 25% at fault. ILL. ANN. STAT. ch. 735, para. 5/2-1117 (Smith-Hurd 1993).Not withstanding § 1117, defendants are jointly liable in all actions involving discharges of pollutants into the environment or negligent medical malpractice. Id. para. 5/2-1118.
Yes (for comparative negligence determination). Bofman v. Material Service Corp., 466 N.E.2d 1064 (Ill. App. 1984).No.
Hillis v. Bridgeolew Little League Ass'n, 713 N.E. 2d 616 (Ill. App. 1st 1999); Cf. Burke v. Rothchild's Liquor Mart, 593 N.E.2d 522 (Ill. 1992).
IND. CODE ANN. § 34-4-33-5(b) (West 1983 & Supp. 1994).
IND. CODE ANN. § 34-4-33-5, 34-4-33-6 (West 1983 & Supp. 1994).
Mark v. Moser, 746 N.E. 2d 410 (Ind. App. 2001)
IowaYes, but only for defendants who are less than 50% at fault. IOWA CODE ANN. § 668.4 (West 1987).Limited.
IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 668.2, 668.3 (West 1987); Pepper v. Star Equipment, 484 N.W.2d 156 (Iowa 1992); Fell v. Kewanee Farm Equipment Co., 457 N.W.2d 911 (Iowa 1990).
Unsettled IOWA CODE ANN. §§ 668.3, 668.4 (West 1987).

60-258a(d) (Supp. 1993).

Mathis v. TG&Y, 751 P.2d 136 (Kan. 1988).
Kansas State Bank & Trust Co. v. Specialized Transportation Services, Inc., 819 P.2d 587 (Kan. 1991).
411.182(3) (Michie/ Bobbs-Merrill 1992).
KY. REV. STAT. ANN. § 411.182(3) (Michie/Bobbs-Merrill 1992).
Roman Catholic Diocese v. Secter, 966 S.W. 2d 286 (Ky. Ct. App. 1998)
LouisianaYes, except that a tortfeasor shall be jointly liable if the tort is a conspiracy to commit an intentional or willful act, but such a tortfeasor is jointly only to the extent necessary for the plaintiff to recover 50% of the damages. If plaintiff's award is reduced due to comparative negligence and the plaintiff's fault is greater than the tortfeasor's fault, then the tortfeasor is only severally liable. LA. CIV. CODE ANN. art. 2324 (West 1979 & Supp. 1995).Limited.
Cavalier v. Cain's Hydrostatic Testin, Inc., 657 So. 2d 975 (La. 1995) (Limiting nonparty apportionment to settling parties).
Veazey v. Elmwood Plantations Ass'n, Ltd., 625 So. 2d 675 (La. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd, 650 So. 2d 712 (La. 1994).Note, determination to be made on a case-by-case basis.
ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 14, § 156 (West 1964).
ME. REV. STAT. ANN. tit. 14, § 156 (West 1964).
Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong, 604 A.2d 47 (Md. 1991).
MASS. GEN. LAWS ANN. ch. 231B, § 1 (West 1986).
Zeroulias v. Hamilton American Legion Assoc., Inc., 705 N.E. 2d 1164 (Mass. App. 1999)
MichiganYes, except in medical malpractice cases where the plaintiff is without fault. MICH. STAT. ANN. § 600.6304 (West 1996).No.
Department of Transportation v. Thrasher, 493 N.W. 2d 457 (Mich. Ct. App. 1992).
MICH. STAT. ANN. § 600.6304 (West 1996).
MinnesotaNo, except if the defendant is 15% or less at fault, then there is a cap on liability-for times the defendant's percentage of fault. There is also a cap for a municipality. Both caps do not apply to actions relating to hazardous materials. MINN. STAT. § 604.02 (1994).UnsettledUnsettled MINN. STAT. §§ 604.01, .02 (West 1988 & Supp. 1995).
MississippiNo, but limited to the extent necessary for the plaintiff to recover 50% of damages or when the defendants act in concerts. MISS. CODE ANN. § 85-5-7(2), (6) (1972).UnsettledNo.
Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc., 163 F. 3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998)
MissouriNo, but when the plaintiff is at fault, there is a right of reallocation of any uncollectable amounts. MO. REV. STAT. § 537-067(1) (1988).UnsettledUnsettled MO. ANN. STAT. § 537-067 (Vernon 1988).
MontanaNo, except when the defendant is 50% or less at fault and the defendants did not act in concert. MONT. CODE ANN. § 27-1-703(1) (1993).Yes.
MONT. CODE ANN. § 27-1-703 (1993).
NebraskaYes, except actions where defendants act in concert and for economic harms. NEB. REV. STAT. § 25-21,185.10 (1996).UnsettledNo.
Brandon v. County of Richardson, 624 N.W. 2d 604 (2001)
NevadaYes, except in actions involving intentional torts, toxic torts, products liability, or defendants acting in concert. NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.141(4)-(5) (1991).Apparently not. NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.141 (1991).Unsettled NEV. REV. STAT. § 41.141 (Michie Supp. 1993).
New HampshireYes, but only when a defendant is greater than 50% at fault and did not act in concert. N.H. REV. STA. ANN. § 507:7-e(I) (Supp. 1994).UnsettledUnsettled.
N.H. REV. STA. ANN. § 507:7-e (Supp. 1994).
New JerseyYes, but not for defandants 60% or more at fault. For defendants greater than 20% but less than 60% at fault, liability is several. Notwithstanding the amount of fault, there is joint and several liability for environmental tort actions. N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2A:15-5.3 (West Supp. 1994).Limited.
Bencivenga v. J.J.A.M.M., Inc., 609 A.2d 1299 (N.J. Super. Ct. 1992); Blazovic v. Andrich 590 A.2d 222 (N.J. 1991).
Blazovic v. Andrich, 590 A.2d 222 (N.J. 1991).
New MexicoYes, when the plaintiff is comparatively at fault, except in actions involving intentional torts. Vicariously liable defendants and strict products liability defendants are jointly liable for their respective combined percentage of fault. Joint and several liability is imposed whenever public policy requires. N.M. STAT. ANN. § 41-3A-1 (Michie 1978).Yes.
N.M. STAT. ANN. § 41-3A-1 (Michie 1978).
Reichert v. Atler, 875 P.2d 384 (N.M. Ct. App. 1992), aff'd, 875 P.2d 379 (N.M. 1994).
New YorkNo, except when the defendant is 50% or less at fault, N.Y. CIV. PRAC. L. & R. 1601 (McKinney Supp. 1995), then several liability for noneconomic damages, id. 1602. The provisions in Rule 1601 do not apply in actions requiring proof of intent or involving reckless disregard, motor vehicles, environmental actions, defendants acting in concert, or in very limited circumstances, certain product liability actions.Limited.
N.Y. CPLR § 1601; In re Eastern and Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation, 772 F. Supp. 1380 (E. and S.D. N.Y. 1991), aff'd in part, rev'd in part, 971 F.2d 831 (2d Cir. 1992).
Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority, 2001 W.L. 869643
North CarolinaNo.
State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Holland, 380 S.E.2d 100 (1989).
North DakotaYes, except when the defendants act in concert. N.D. CENT. CODE § 32-03.2-02 (1976 & Supp. 1993).Yes.
N.D. CENT. CODE § 32-03.2-02 (1976 & Supp. 1993); Murphy v. Tivoli Enterprises, 953 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1992).
See McLean v. Kirby Co., 490 N.W.2d 229 (N.D. 1992).
OhioYes, but when the plaintiff is comparatively at fault, the defendants are severally liable for noneconomic damages. OHIO REV. CODE ANN. § 2315.19(D)(1) (Baldwin 1990).No.
Eberly v. A-P Controls, Inc., 572 N.E.2d 633 (Ohio 1991).
Fulwiler v. Schneider, 662 N.E. 2d 82 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995).
OklahomaNo, unless the plaintiff is also negligent. Price v. Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 812 P.2d 1355 (Okla. 1991).No.
Paul v. N.L. Industries, 624 P.2d 68 (Okla. 1981).
OregonYes, except for economic damages, except if the defendant's fault is less than 15% or less than the plaintiff's fault; notwithstanding the foregoing, joint liability for actions involving hazardous waste or pollution. OR. REV. STAT. § 18.485 (1993).No.
Mills v. Brown, 735 P.2d 603 (Or. 1987).
Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 974 P.2d 738 (OR,App. 1999)
Crowell v. City of Philadelphia, 613 A.2d 1178 (Pa. 1992).
Hutchinson ex rel. Hutchinson v. Luddy, 763 A.2d 826 (PA. Super. 2000).
Rhode IslandNo.
Cooney v. Molis, 640 A.2d 527 (R.I. 1994).
South CarolinaNo.
Rowrk v. Selvey, 164 S.E.2d 909 (S.C. 1968); Scott v. Fruehauf Corp., 396 S.E.2d 354 (S.C. 1990).
South DakotaNo, but if the defendant is less than 50% at fault, joint liability may not exceed two times the defendant's percentage of fault. S.D. CODIFIED LAWS ANN. § 15-8-15.1 (Supp. 1994).UnsettledUnsettled S.D. CODIFIED LAWS § 15-8-15 (Michie 1984).
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
Limbaugh v. Coffee Medical Center, (No. M1999-01181 -SC-R11-CV October 16, 2001); Turner v. Jordan, 957 S.W. 2d 815 (1997)
TexasYes, except when a defendant's fault is greater than 20% and greater than the plaintiff's comparative fault; when the plaintiff is not at fault and the defendant's fault is greater than 10%; or in actions involving hazardous substances or toxic torts.TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.013 (Vernon Supp. 1995).Limited.
TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 33.033 (Vernon Supp. 1995).
Unsettled TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. §§ 33.012, .013 (West Supp. 1995).
UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-27-38, -40 (1992).
UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-27-39 (1992); Sullivan v. Scoular Grain Co., 853 P.2d 877 (Utah 1993).
See, Field v. Boyer Co., 952 P. 2d 1078 (Utah1998); Cf. Cortez v. University Mall Shopping Center, 941 F. Supp. 1096 (Cent. Dist. Utah, 1996).
VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1036 (Supp. 1994).
See, Plante v. Johnson, 565 A.2d 1346 (Vt. 1989).
VT. STAT. ANN. tit. 12, § 1036 (Supp. 1994).
Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 353 S.E.2d 752 (Va. 1987).
WashingtonYes, except in actions relating to hazardous waste, tortious interference with contracts, or manufacture of generic products, and when defendants acted in concert. WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 4.22.070 (West Supp. 1994).Limited.
WASH. REV. CODE ANN. § 4.22.070 (West Supp. 1994).
Welch v. Southland Corp., 952 P. 2d 162, 166 (1998); Standing Rock Homeowner's Ass'n v. Misich, 23 P. 3d 520 (Wash. App. Div. 3 2001)
West VirginiaNo, except in medical professional liability actions, when the defendant is less than 25% negligent. Board of Educ. v. Zanda, Martin & Milstead, Inc., 390 S.E.2d 796 (W. Va. 1990); W. VA. CODE § 55-7B-9 (1994).UnsettledUnsettled
Brander ex rel. Brander v. Allstate Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. 1994).
Yes (for comparative negligence determination). Connar v. West Shore Equipment, 227 N.W.2d 660 (Wis. 1975)Unsettled
WYO. STAT. § 1-1-109(e) (1988 & Supp. 1994).
Board of County Comm'rs of Tetan County Sheriff's Dept. v. Bassett, 8 P. 3d 1079 (Wyo. 2000) See also, WYO. STAT. § 1-1-109 (Supp. 1994).
Client Reviews
I have known Ira for several decades and without a doubt he represents the best of the profession- a never ending commitment to his clients and a perpetual desire for learning and sharing his expertise with his colleagues. Richard
I found, and still find, that Ira’s firm will evaluate the case fairly and provide the client with a reasonably expectation of the process involved and will avoid giving false hope where there is none. Also Ira’s firm consistently keeps in constant touch with the client as well as referring attorneys so each knows the progress of a case. Finally I can tell you that if I personally were injured, Ira Leesfield is the first person I would call. Michael Browning
I'm impressed and very satisfied with the handling of my injury case at this law firm. I was helped and walked through every step of the way. I'm happy to report a fantastic settlement achieved by this excellent law firm. Thank you Rosa
The people at Leesfield & Partners are extremely professional and compassionate! I would refer your Law Firm to anyone that was in need of an attorney! Thank you my friends. Karen
Our family highly recommends the team at Leesfield & Partners. Every step of the way, Barbie Leon was there to make sure we were updated on the progress of the case as well as answer any questions we had. Barbie was in constant communication with our family. She is thoughtful and caring and worked hard to make sure we understood everything that was happening around us. Linda