Opinion ID: 2552147
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Background of AS 09.17.080

Text: Before 1986, Alaska followed the rule of joint and several liability, which allowed a plaintiff to recover all damages from one named defendant; that defendant could then seek reimbursement from other at-fault parties by filing an action for contribution within one year of judgment. [5] The statute at issue in this case repealed that joint and several liability scheme; enacted by voter initiative, [6] AS 09.17.080 provided that a plaintiff can recover from each party only in accordance with that party's percentage of fault. [7] In striking down the existing scheme of joint and several liability, the voter initiative repealed AS 09.16, which had set out a contribution procedure that allowed defendants, after entry of judgment against them, to seek pro rata reimbursement from culpable third parties. [8] But the newly enacted statute providing for apportioned liability established no comparable procedure to allow named defendants to allocate fault to potentially responsible parties that the plaintiff had not sued. We addressed this omission in Benner v. Wichman. [9] The defendant in Benner argued that the superior court erred by not instructing the jury that it could apportion liability for a construction accident among all those responsible for the plaintiff's injuries, including the plaintiff's employer and the general contractor, who were not parties to the lawsuit. [10] We rejected this broad reading of the statute, holding that party within the meaning of AS 09.17.080 was restricted to parties to the action, including third party defendants and settling parties. [11] We also concludedin the absence of any explicit statutory procedurethat equity demanded that defendants be allowed to mitigate their damages by filing third-party claims against other potentially responsible persons. [12] The following year, we adopted Alaska Civil Rule 14(c) to establish the procedure that defendants could use for equitable apportionment of damages to third parties who had no direct liability to the defendant but were potentially responsible to the plaintiff. Rule 14(c) provides that a defendant, as a third-party plaintiff, may join any party whose fault may have been a cause of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. [13] The rule specifies that a judgment may be entered against the third-party defendant in favor of the plaintiff even in the absence of a direct claim. [14]