Helping Crime Victims Pursue Civil Justice

The NCVBA provides technical support to attorneys representing crime victims in civil actions, refers crime victims to lawyers in their local area, and works to increase general awareness about the availability of civil remedies for victims of crime.

Apportionment of Fault Survey


Please help us keep our information up-to-date and accurate. If you have relevant information for this chart, please email victimbar@ncvc.org.

Data is subject to change due to interpretation by statutory and judicial opinions.

The information contained in this table is not provided for the purposes of rendering legal advice or authority. The National Crime Victim Bar Association and the National Center for Victims of Crime specifically disclaim any liability, loss or risk, personal or otherwise, which is incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, of the use and application of any of the contents of this chart. 

This chart is based on the foundational work done on this topic by John E. Leighton of Leighton Law Offices in Miami, FL.




State

Joint and Several Liability Abolished?

Apportion Fault of Non-parties?

Compare Negligent and Intentional Conduct?

Alabama

NO

Looney v. Davis , 721 So.2d 152, Supreme Court of Alabama , 1998

NO

UNDECIDED

Alaska

YES

Alaska Stat. §09.17.080(d)

YES

Alaska Stat. §09.17.080(c), Evans v. State, 56 P.3d. 1046, Supreme Court of Alaska , 2002

UNDECIDED

Alaska Stat. §09.17.900, Kodiak Island Borough v. Roe, 63 P.3d. 1009, Supreme Court of Alaska , 2003

Arizona

YES

With the exception of tortfeasors acting in concert to commit an intentional act Ariz.Rev.Stat. §12-2506

YES

Ariz.Rev.Stat. §12-2506(b)

YES

Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix , 961 P.2d. 449, Supreme Court of Arizona , 1996

Arkansas

YES

With the exception of parties acting in concert to commit an intentional act

ARK. CODE §16-55-201 (The Civil Justice Reform Act of 2003)

 

NO

ARK. CODE §16-64-122(a), E-ton Dynamics Indus. Corp. v. Hall, 115 S.W.3d. 816, Court of Appeals of Arkansas , Division 4, 2003

UNDECIDED

Arkansas code broadly defines "fault" under §16-64-122(c), FDIC v. DeLoitte & Touche, 834 F. Supp. 1155 (E.D. Ark.  1993)

 

California

YES

Only in cases of personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death where the remedy sought is "non-economic" as defined by the statute. CAL. CIV. CODE §1431.2

 

YES

Taylor v. Crane, Inc., 6 Cal. Rptr. 3d. 695, Court of Appeals of California, First Appellate District, Division Four, 2003. DaFonte v. Up-Right, 828 P.2d. 140, Supreme Court of California , 1992.

YES

Weinderfeller v. Star & Garter, 2 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 14, Court of Appeals of California , 1991.

Rosh v. Cave Imaging Systems, Inc., 32 Cal. Rptr. 2d. 136, Court of Appeals of California, 6th District, 1994.

Colorado

YES

Only in cases of death or injury to person or property with the exception of parties acting in concert with one another COLO. REV. STAT. §13-21-111.5

YES

COLO. REV. STAT. §13-21-11.5(4)

 

YES

Slack v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, 5 P.3d. 280, Supreme Court of Colorado , 2000.

Connecticut

YES

Only in cases of personal injury, property damage, and wrongful death CONN. GEN. STAT. §52-572h

 

NO

Cannot apportion fault to unidentified parties.  Any individual whom fault will be apportioned to must be added under CONN. GEN. STAT. §52-102(b), which essentially makes him/her a party to the case. Eskin v. Castiglia, 753 A.2d. 927, Supreme Court of Connecticut , 2000.

Collins v. Colonial Penn. Ins. Co., 778 A.2d 899, Supreme Court of Connecticut , 2001.

NO

CONN. GEN. STAT. §52-572h(o)

Delaware

NO

DEL. CODE, title 10, §6301-6303  (Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Law)

Hall v. Gunzl, 723 A.2d. 385, (Del. Super.  1998).

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

District of Columbia

NO

Logan v. Providence Hosp. Inc., 778 A.2d. 275, (DC App.  2001)

 

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

Florida

YES

Established a multi-tiered limitation on the rule of joint and several liability based on whether or not a plaintiff is or is without fault.  Does not apply to pollution or intentional tort cases. FLA. STAT., title XLV, §768.81.

 

YES

Lagueux v. Union Carbide Corp., 861 So. 2d. 87, Court of Appeals of Florida, 4th District, 2003. Fault can not be apportioned in cases of vicarious liability. Suarez v. Gonzalez, 820 So. 2d. 342, Court of Appeals of Florida, 4th District, 2002.

 

NO

D'Amario v. Ford Motor Co., 806 So. 2d. 424, Supreme Court of Florida , 2001.

Georgia

YES

Only applicable when plaintiff is some degree at fault.

GA. CODE (unannotated) §51-12-33

 

NO

Schriever v. Maddox, 578 S.E.2d. 210, Court of Appeals of Georgia, 3rd Division, 2003.

UNDECIDED

GA. CODE (unannotated) §51-12-33

Hawaii

YES

Exceptions include economic injury or death, intentional torts, pollution, toxic accidents, asbestos, aircraft or motor vehicles, product liability.

HAWAII REV. STAT. §663-10.9, §663-10.5 (applies to the government)

UNDECIDED

HAWAII REV. STAT. §663-31

 

UNDECIDED

HAWAII REV. STAT. §663-10.9

Idaho

YES

Only applicable to parties "acting in concert or when a person was acting as an agent or servant of another party." Idaho Code § 6-803 (Michie 2004)

YES

Fault can be apportioned in comparative negligence cases. Idaho Code § 6-802 (Michie 1992) Beitzel v. City of Coeur d'Atene, 121 Idaho 709, 713 (1992).

YES

For joint and several liability, the plaintiff's negligence will be compared with the intentional or reckless conduct of parties that have acted in concert. Idaho Code § 6-803 (Michie 2004).

Illinois

NO

Joint and several liability applies to death, bodily injury, and property damage in product liability and negligence cases. 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-1117 (2004). For any other damages, defendants less than 25% at fault are severally liable, and defendants more than 25% at fault are joint and severally liable.

YES

For contributory negligence cases the liability of nonparties can be introduced to determine if the plaintiff is liable (and what that liability is), but it cannot reduce the liability of any defendant. Smith v. Central Ill. Pub. Serv. Co., 531 N.E.2d 51, 60 ( Ill. App. 1988).

NO

Hillis v. Bridgeolew Little League Ass'n, 713 N.E.2d 616 (Ill. App. 1st 1999); Cf. Burke v. Rothchild's Liquor Mart, 593 N.E.2d 522 ( Ill. 1992)

Indiana

YES

Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2-8 (Michie 2004)

YES

Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2-8(1) The court's verdict form requires that the jury provide the percent every party is at fault. Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2-11 (Michie 2004).

UNDECIDED

Not specified in Ind. Code Ann. § 34-51-2 (Michie 2004).

Iowa

YES

But limited to defendants found to be more than 50% at fault for the economic damages of the plaintiff. Iowa Code Ann. § 668.4 (2003). No joint and several liability for non-economic damages. Id.

 

LIMITED

In comparative fault cases fault may be assessed for people released from liability in deciding the percent of fault of all other parties included in the lawsuit, as well as, the amount the plaintiffs are entitled to based on these determinations. Iowa Code Ann. § 668.2 (2003). 

UNDECIDED

Ann. §§ 668.3, 668.4 (2003).

 

Kansas

YES

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-258a(b) (2003)

Kan. Stat. Ann. § 60-238a(d) (2003)

YES

Mathis v. TF&Y, 751 P.2d. 136 ( Kan. 1988)

NO

Maunz v. Perales, 76 P.3d 1027, 1033 ( Kan. 2003)

Kentucky

YES

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182 (Michie 2004)

YES

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182 (Michie 2004)

UNDECIDED

Louisiana

YES

Except when a party has acted in concert with another party to commit willful or intentional acts.

La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 2324 (West 2004). La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1812 (West 2004)

YES

La. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. art. 1812 (West 2004). Williams v. City of Marksville , 839 So. 2d 1129, 1132 ( La. App. 2003)

YES

Veavey v. Elmwood Plantations Ass'n, Ltd., 625 So. 2d 675 (La. Ct. App. 1993), aff'd, 650 So. 2d 712, 720 ( La. 1994)

However, intentional and negligent is determined on a case by case basis

Maine

NO

14 Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 156 (West 2003). However, a party may ask the court to give the jury instructions to calculate the percentage of fault for each defendant. Id.

NO

Me. Rev. Stat. Ann. Tit. 14 § 156 (West 2003)

UNDECIDED

Maryland

NO

Owens-Illinois v. Armstrong, 591 A.2d 544, 559 ( Md. App. 1991)

UNDECIDED

Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-1404 (2003)

UNDECIDED

Massachusetts

NO

However defendants who are jointly liable are given the right of contribution if the defendant pays more than his portion of the judgment. Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 231B § 1 (2004). The excess paid is given a right of contribution when the other defendants pay their individual portions, as long as those defendants do not pay more than their share. Id.

UNDECIDED

Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 231B § 1 (2004)

 

NO

In applying Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 231B § 1 (2004) intentional conduct can't be compared to negligent conduct. Flood v. Southland Corp., 616 N.E.2d 1068, 1071 (Mass Sup. Jud. Ct. 1993).

Michigan

YES

Limited to medical malpractice suits when there is a no-fault plaintiff. Mich. Stat. Ann. § 600.6304 (Michie 2004).

YES

Yes, in the sense that fault is calculated for parties released from liability (including nonparties). Mich. Stat. Ann. § 600.6304 (Michie 2004). When the judgment is entered by the court it does not include the fault of the released parties. Id.

 

UNDECIDED

Mich. Stat. Ann. § 600.6304 (Michie 2004).

 

Minnesota

NO

Although limited to parties found to be more than 50% at fault, parties acting in concert, intentional tortfeasors, and parties liable for public health or environmental or ordinance violations. Minn. Stat. § 604.02 (2003)

YES

Juries must think about whether any and all parties are at fault, including nonparties. Johnson v. Niagara Mach. & Tool Works, 666 F.2d 1223, 1226 ( Minn. 1981).

NO

Intentional torts do not apply for a determination of comparative negligence. Florenzano v. Olson, 387 N.W. 2d 168, 175 ( Minn. 1986).

 

Mississippi

NO

But modifies the rule of joint and several liability such that it applies only to the extent necessary to pay injured party 50% of recoverable damages

Miss.Code.Ann. § 85-5-7(2)

UNDECIDED

NO

Whitehead v. Food Max of Mississippi, Inc. 163 F.3d 265 (5th Cir. 1998)

Missouri

NO

Bars application of the rule in the recovery of all damages when a plaintiff is assessed a portion of the fault. Mo.Stat. § 537.067

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

Mo.Stat. § 537.067

Montana

NO

Except when defendant found 50% or less at fault Mont.Code Anno., § 27-1-705 (2003)

YES

Mont.Code Anno., § 27-1-705 (2003)

UNDECIDED

Nebraska

YES

Except when defendants act in concert, then joint and several liability applies for economic and non-economic damages

UNDECIDED

NO

Brandon v. County of Richardson , 2001 Neb. LEXIS 74, 261 Neb 636, 624 N.W.2d 604 (2001)

Nevada

YES

Except for actions involving intentional torts or defendants acting in concert Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.141 (4) (5) (1991)

UNDECIDED

Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.141 (4) (5) (1991)

UNDECIDED

Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.141 (4) (5) (1991)

New Hampshire

YES

For defendants found to be 50% or less at fault N.H. Rev.Stat.Ann. § 507:7-e RSA 507:7-e (2003)

UNDECIDED 

UNDECIDED

Nev.Rev.Stat. § 41.141 (4) (5) (1991)

New Jersey

YES

Established 60% threshold for joint and several liability for both economic and non-economic damages N.J. Stat.Ann § 2A:15-5.3 and N.J. Stat.Ann § 59:1-1 to 12-3

LIMITED

Blazovic v. Andrich 590 A.2d 222 (N.J. 1991)

YES

N.J. Stat.Ann § 59:9-3.1 and Frugis v. Bracigliano, 177 N.J. 250, 827 A.2d 1040

New Mexico

YES

When the plaintiff is found to be partially liable N.M. Stat.Ann. § 41-3A-1 (2004) Toxic torts are an exception

YES

N.M. Stat.Ann. § 41-3A-1 (2004)

YES

Reichert v. Atler 875 P.2d. 384

 

New York

NO

Although defendants found 50% or less at fault are only severally liable for noneconomic damages. Does not apply to defendant's actions that are in reckless disregard of the rights of others and in actions involving motor vehicle, toxic torts, intentional torts, and product liability Boyd v. Trent, 297 A.D.2d. 301. 

YES

N.Y. C.P.L.R. 1601

YES

Roseboro v. New York City Transit Authority, 2001 W.L. 869643

North Carolina

NO

N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1B-7 (2004)

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Holland . 324 N.C. 466

Harlow v. Voyager Communications V. 348 N.C. 568

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

North Dakota

YES

Except for intentional torts, defendants acting in concert, and product liability cases

YES

N.D. Cent. Code § 32-03.2-.02 (1976 & Supp. 1993)

UNDECIDED

Ohio

YES

When plaintiff is assessed some measure of fault

OH.Rev.Code 2307.22 defendants are severally liable for non-economic damages

 

NO

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2315.19 and Eberly v. A-P Controls, Inc., 61 Ohio St. 3d 27

NO

Fulwiler v. Schneider, 662 N.E. 2d 82 (Ohio Ct. App. 1995)

 

Oklahoma

NO

Joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable when the recovering claimant is without fault

Boyles v. Oklahoma Natural Gas Co., 619 P.2d 613 (Okla. 1980); Anderson v. Donoghue, 677 P.2d 648 ( Okla. 1983).

NO

Paul v. N.L. Industries, 624 P.2d. 68 ( Okla 1981)

NO

Graham, 847 P.2d at 345

Oregon

YES

ORS § 18.485 (2003)

Whether defendant is 15 % or more at fault is measured only against other parties to action

NO

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 18.470 and

Brown v. Washington County , 163 Or App 362, 987 P2d 1254 (1999)

NO

Hampton Tree Farms, Inc. v. Jewett, 158 Ore. App. 376  

Pennsylvania

NO

Baker v. AC&S, Inc., 1999 PA Super 65  and

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8322

 

UNDECIDED

NO

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 7102

Rhode Island

NO

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.1 and Cooney v. Molis, 640 A.2d 526 (R.I. 1994)

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

South Carolina

NO

Rowrk v. Selvey, 164 S.E. 2d 909

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

South Dakota

NO

S.D. Codified Laws § 15-8-15.1 (2003), although any party who is allocated less than fifty percent of the total fault allocated to all the parties may not be jointly liable for more than twice the percentage of fault allocated to that party.

 

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

Tennessee

YES

McIntyre V. Balentine, 833 S.W. 2d 52 (1992)

YES

McIntyre V. Balentine, 833 S.W. 2d 52 (1992)

NO

Turner v. Jordan , 957 S.W.2d 815 (1997)

Texas

YES

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013  (2004)

 

LIMITED

Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 33.013  (2004)

 

UNDECIDED

Utah

YES

Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-38  (2004)

 

YES

Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-39  (2004); Bishop v. GenTec, Inc., 2002 UT 3648 P.3d 218, 2002

 

UNDECIDED

Cortez v. University Mall Shopping Ctr., 941 F. Supp. 1096 and Field v. Boyer Co., L.C., 952 P.2d 1078;   Utah Code Ann. § 78-27-37

 

Vermont

YES

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1036

UNDECIDED

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 12, § 1036

UNDECIDED

Virginia

NO

Bartholomew v. Bartholomew, 353 S.E.2d 752 (1987)

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

Washington

YES

Except when dealing with hazardous waste, generic products, and interference in contracts; Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §4.22.070 (1994)

LIMITED

Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §4.22.070 (1994)

NO

Welch v. Southland Corp., 952 P.2d. 162 (1998)

West Virginia

NO

Except in cases of medical negligence suits where the defendant is less than 25% liable; W.Va. Code §55-7b-9 (1994)

UNDECIDED

UNDECIDED

Wisconsin

NO

Brander ex re. Brander v. Allstate Ins. Co.,  512 N.W.2d 753 (1994)

YES

For Comparative negligence determination only

 Connar v. West Shore Equipment, 227 N.W.2d 660 (1975)

UNDECIDED

Wyoming

YES

Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109(e)

UNDECIDED

YES

Wyo.Stat. § 1-1-109(e) and Board of County COmm'rs of Tetan County Sheriff's Department v. Bassett, 8 P.3d 1079 (2000)