Opinion ID: 1104220
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: History of Quantification of Fault

Text: Prior to the advent of comparative fault, quantification of the fault of parties, or even of persons not parties, was never an issue. In the case of joint tortfeasors each was liable to the plaintiff for the whole of the plaintiff's damages, and contribution among joint tortfeasors was by equal portions according to the number of tortfeasors. Of course, if the plaintiff was at fault, recovery was totally barred regardless of the plaintiff's degree of fault. By La.Acts 1979, No. 431, the Legislature adopted a system of pure comparative fault, in which any contributory negligence by the plaintiff of less than one hundred percent merely reduces the amount of recovery. The Legislature was silent as to whose fault should be quantified, neither adopting nor rejecting the provisions of the Uniform Comparative Fault Act which recommended quantifying the fault only of parties to the action and of persons who settled with the plaintiff. [1] See § 2(a). The Act amended La.Civ.Code art. 2323 simply to provide that contributory negligence, instead of defeating recovery, would only reduce the amount of damages in proportion to the degree or percentage of negligence attributable to the person suffering the injury, death or loss. La.Civ.Code art. 2324, which in the 1825 and 1870 Codes had provided for solidary liability when one person caused another to commit a tort or assisted in the commission, was also amended to provide, among other things, for solidary liability among negligent joint tortfeasors ([p]ersons whose concurring fault has caused injury, death or loss ...). The Act, however, created an exception for a particular joint tortfeasor whose degree of fault was less than the tort victim's degree of negligence, in which case that tortfeasor's liability was solidary only up to the degree of his or her fault. In the same 1979 act, the Legislature also amended former La.Code Civ.Proc. art. 1811 relative to special verdicts. The amended Article 1811B required the court, in cases to recover damages for injury, death or loss, to submit written questions to the jury inquiring as to the causation and degree of fault of each party defendant and, [i]f appropriate, whether another involved person ... was at fault, as well as that person's causation and degree of fault. [2] Other required questions addressed the plaintiff's negligence, causation and degree of fault, and the total amount of damages. By Acts 1983, No. 534, the Legislature, on the recommendation of the Louisiana State Law Institute, again amended former La. Code Civ.Proc. art. 1811 and placed the special verdict provisions of former Article 1811B in Article 1812C. The amendment changed the word shall to may in Article 1812C and added the phrase unless waived by all parties. Comment (b) explained that the amendment requires the court to submit these written questions to the jury unless there is a waiver by all parties. The 1983 amendment also deleted the word involved from Article 1812C(2) and added the phrase whether party or not. Comment (c) stated that the purpose was to clarify the meaning of question 2. In Lemire v. New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc., 458 So.2d 1308 (La.1984), this court cited 1983 Revision Comment (b) to Article 1812C and noted that the apparent intent is that the court in such circumstances is required to submit the questions. (emphasis in original). However, that statement was not necessary to the holding of the case that the trial court's submitting the question of a public body's fault to the jury in a simultaneous bifurcated trial against both a private and a public defendant did not violate the statutory prohibition of jury trials against public bodies. Moreover, the Legislature by La.Acts 1985, No. 143, directed the Law Institute to delete the portion of the 1983 Revision Comment (b) that indicated the submission of written questions is required in the absence of a waiver by all parties. Thus, the present state of the law with regard to submitting written questions to the jury in personal injury and wrongful death cases is that the trial court may, but is not required to, submit the questions listed in Article 1812C to the jury. The trial court has the discretion in the appropriate circumstances to utilize a general verdict, although the obviously preferable procedure in most cases where there is evidence of fault by more than one party is to use special written questions.