Footnotes

[1] See Reott v. Asia Trend, Inc., 55 A.3d 1088, 1095 (Pa. 2012).

[2] For brevity, "comparative fault" is used interchangeably with "comparative negligence" in this article.

[3] Hereinafter "Restatement Second."

[4] Hereinafter "Restatement Third."

[5] See www.ali.org.

[6] Discussed in Dehring v. Keystone, 2013 WL 3879619, 6 (E.D. Mich.).

[7] Spowal v. ITW, 2013 WL 1871267, 3 (W.D. Pa.).

[8] Restatement Third, Sec. 17, comments a and c.

[9] Id.

[10] Allen v. C & H, 2013 WL 4506233, 4 (W.D. La.).

[11] Nemmers v. Ford, 686 F.3d 486, 489 (C.A.8 Iowa 2012).

[12] Patterson v. Long, 321 Ga.App. 157, 160-161, 741 S.E.2d 242, 247 (2013).

[13] Johnson v. American Honda, 2012 WL 1027588, 16-18 (D.Mont. 2012).

[14] Schwartz v. Hasbro, 2012 WL 1414094, 11-12 (N.J.Super.A.D.); see also McGarrigle v. Mercury, 838 F.Supp.2d 282, 294-295 (D.N.J. 2011) and McGee v. Stihl, 2011 WL 6130417, 9 (D.N.J.).

[15] Sadler v. Advanced, 2013 WL 1636374, 3 (W.D. Ky.).

[16] 2013 WL 5442903, 2 (Ill. App. 1 Dist. 2013).

[17] 901 F.Supp.2d 834, 842 (N.D.Tex. 2012).

[18] Under Maine law, comparative fault "does not apply to strict liability claims where the plaintiff's only alleged negligence is failure to discover the defect in the product or to guard against the possibility of its existence." Hinton v. Outboard, 2012 WL 260033, 2-4 (D. Me.).

[19] Restatement Third at Section 17, Comment d.

[20] Id.

[21] 55 A.3d 1088, 1095 (Pa. 2012).

[22] The Restatement Third does not address allocations of the burden of proof, leaving that issue to local laws. See Sec. 17.

[23] Reott, 55 A.3d at 1096.

[24] Weigle v. SPX, 2013 WL 4767365, 12-13 (7^th Cir.).

[25] O'Neal v. Bumbo, 2013 WL 4083281, 7-8 (S.D. Tex.).

Special Reports /

Comparative Fault as a Defense in Products Liability Subrogation

Related Stories

Recommended For You