Opinion ID: 2518592
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Gump

Text: In addition to Taylor, Dizol, and Granger, Gump illustrates that we have applied the term joint tortfeasor to erstwhile defendants whose fault was never adjudicated. In that case, the plaintiff slipped on a french fry outside [a] McDonald's restaurant but inside the premises of Wal-Mart and sustained injuries. The restaurant [wa]s located inside the . . . Wal-Mart. 93 Hawai`i at 419, 5 P.3d at 409. The plaintiff released McDonald's pursuant to settlement, but proceeded to trial against Wal-Mart. Id. After [t]he jury . . . apportioned liability 95% to Wal-Mart and 5% to the plaintiff and awarded damages, Wal-Mart moved for a new trial in which McDonald's [w]ould be included on the special verdict form. Id. The trial court denied the motion and Wal-Mart appealed. Id. On certiorari to the ICA, we ultimately upheld the trial court's omission of McDonald's from the special verdict form inasmuch as Wal-Mart had not cross-claimed against McDonald's, but we agreed that McDonald's was a joint tortfeasor, on no other basis than its having been named as a defendant. See id. at 422-23, 5 P.3d at 412-13.