Question

A pedestrian walking on the sidewalk was struck by a car backing out of a driveway. The driver did not see the pedestrian because her neighbor’s bushes obscured her view of the sidewalk. The pedestrian was seriously injured and brought suit against the driver and the neighbor. The pedestrian also included the city in his lawsuit, alleging that the city failed to enforce its ordinance requiring homeowners to provide a clear view of sidewalks where they intersect with driveways. The trier of fact determined that the driver was 60% at fault, the neighbor was 30% at fault, and the city was 10% at fault. The jurisdiction has adopted comparative contribution in cases applying joint and several liability.

Which of the following is a correct statement regarding liability?A. The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.B. Both the driver and the neighbor are liable to the pedestrian for 90% of the damage award.C. Each of the three defendants are liable to the pedestrian for one-third of the damage award.D. The driver is liable to the pedestrian for 60% of the damage award, the neighbor is liable for 30% of the damage award, and the city is liable for 10% of the damage award.

Answer 1

A. The city is liable to the pedestrian for the full amount of the damage award.

Step-by-step explanation:

Under joint and multiple liability, each and every defendant deemed to be at fault for an indivisible injury by the trier is liable to the complainant for the full amount of damages sustained, not just a component thereof.

(Furthermore, numerous recovery is not permitted.) Therefore, since the town was found to be responsible for the incident, the pedestrian might recover from the town the full amount of the damage award.