HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/08/11 Item 9COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
• Item 9
Meeting Date 8/11/87
ITEM TITLE: Resolution~~f~ Supporting the Abolition of Joint and Several
Liability
SUBMITTED BY: City Attorney
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
This resolution would urge the League of California Cities to support the
abolition of joint and several liability.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A
DISCUSSION:
In 1985-86, there were two proposals for tort reform to protect cities from
unreasonable judgments based upon the wrongful acts of third parties. One
bill was the Foran bill which ultimately became the basis for Proposition 51.
While we supported the Foran bill, we did so with the recognition that it was
• not a complete solution but merely a step in the right direction. Under
Foran/Proposition 51, cities still have to pay a large share of judgments
which are not attributable to the city's fault. While cities received some
relief in the area of payment for pain and suffering, Proposition 51 did not
eliminate the abusive process whereby cities are sued as a "deep pocket" when
the damages are attributable to third parties unrelated to the city.
'T'here are some further tort reforms being discussed this year, but they are
all very complicated and of minimal value in eliminating the costs of
litigation and judgments in cases where the city is very minimally involved.
At the time the Foran bill was originally being considered, there was also
another bill dealing with tort reform which was known as the Carpenter bill.
This bill would have eliminated joint and several liability. 'This concept is
that the city would only pay that share of the judgment commensurate with its
share of the fault. For example, a city 10~ liable would pay 10~ of the
damages; no more no less. 'T'his proposal would eliminate the viability of
naming the city as a "throw-in" defendant in the hopes that a finding of
minimal liability on the city's part would result in the city picking up a
lion's share of the judgment. It would easily be understood by the layman and
result in a defendant paying only its share of the damages, a concept which
should appeal to everyone's sense of fairness.
FISCAL IMPACT: N/A
• 3179a
~__
y the Citf Ccu,~~il of
Chula Vista, Ca~itornia
Dated