Opinion ID: 2459736
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: barrettcomparative liability

Text: Finally, we turn to the issue of comparative liability when the negligence of several defendants causes an indivisible injury. The court of appeals held that for certain plaintiffs in Barrett, there is no evidence from which the jury could have allocated the liability as it did between U.S. Brass and Vanguard, and that accordingly, there was no evidence of causation of damage to the homes and personal property of those plaintiffs. 864 S.W.2d at 633. If, however, there was evidence that U.S. Brass' negligence was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' damages, U.S. Brass' responsibility for that damage did not evaporate if the jury erred in apportioning liability between U.S. Brass and Vanguard. If the injuries arising from the plumbing system could not be apportioned with reasonable certainty, then the plaintiffs' injuries were indivisible, and the defendants are jointly and severally liable for the whole. See Landers v. East Tex. Salt Water Disposal Co., 151 Tex. 251, 248 S.W.2d 731, 734 (1952). Because the plaintiffs established the elements of their negligence claims, they are entitled to recover from U.S. Brass for its negligence. We accordingly reverse the court of appeals' take-nothing judgment as to the plaintiffs' negligence claims, and remand those claims to the trial court. At retrial, U.S. Brass will have the burden of apportioning its liability for the plaintiffs' injuries. If U.S. Brass cannot establish its percentage of liability, and thus remains liable for the whole, the trial court should credit U.S. Brass for the amounts the plaintiffs received in settlement from the other joint tortfeasors. See Riley v. Industrial Fin. Serv. Co., 302 S.W.2d 652, 656 (Tex.1957). [2]