Opinion ID: 2585937
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allocation of responsibility

Text: The arbitrator found that Mr. Kinn's sins were more of omission rather than commission, but noted that Kinn and Singletary were equally irresponsible in their management of the land because neither of them made any effort whatsoever to understand the functioning of what they owned or what the infrastructure's capabilities and weak points were. Although Kinn and Singletary denied the existence of a partnership, the arbitrator found that they had been partners during their ownership of the property, and that, [a]s partners[,] . . . Mr. Kinn and Mr. Singletary are individually jointly and severally liable for Mr. Singletary's acts and omissions. [3] But elsewhere in the opinion, the arbitrator noted that each had the right to pursue a contribution claim from the other in superior court. [4]