Injury attorneys in Pennsylvania never liked PA’s “Fair Share Act.” This is because it generally did away with the ability in PA to collect the full amount of an injury claim against any party responsible, even if only 1% at fault!
On March 18, 2021, the Pennsylvania Superior Court decided Spencer v. Johnson, 2021 Pa. Super. 48 (Pa. Super. Ct. March 18, 2021). There, in dicta (language not necessarily binding on future cases or having precedential value) that the Fair Share Act will not apply unless the Plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
Background
In the case ofSpencer, the plaintiff was a pedestrian injured by a motor vehicle alleged driven by a drunk driver, apparently operating a company vehicle provided to the wife of the driver.
With me so far?
The point is, there were multiple responsible parties, but PA now has something called the “Fair Share Act,” which provides, each party can only be liable for the percentage share of the harm caused (absent certain exceptions). Thus, for example, if the negligence of wife’s company’s conduct had contributed to only 10% of the damages (minimal involvement), said company would only have to pay 10% of any verdict. Hence, this was a change from the old rule of “joint and several liability,” where a party 1% at fault could be responsible for 100% of the damages.
In Spencer, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding a verdict of over $13 million. The jury found all defendants negligent and responsible. Liability was apportioned as follows:
(1) the defendant driver – 36%;
(2) wife of the driver – 19%; and
(3) company – 45%.
The plaintiff moved that the trial court mold the verdict and hold the company jointly and severally liable. With this, the court agreed. Then, on appeal, the Superior Court disagreed and reversed.
What’s Important About the Opinion?
The Superior court’s decision is not as important as the dicta — language unnecessary to decide the case, but language nevertheless that would show the appellate court’s leaning on an important issue. Evidently, the superior court believes that the Fair Share Act can only limited joint and several liability where the Plaintiff (himself or herself) is at least partly negligent or contributorily (combatively) negligent. In fact, at least one trial court has relied on the reasoning in Spencer, holding “the superior court would rule that joint and several liability applied to all defendants, without limitation, unless the plaintiff had some amount of contributory negligence.” Ace v. Ace, PICS Case No. 23-0085 (C.P. Monroe Jan 12., 2023).
Innocent Plaintiffs Likely Not be Bound by the Fair Share Act
Thus, for example, a passenger in a car — even one who has only limited tort — but not at fault (sitting idly as a passenger) cannot liable for the the accident. Thus, should not have her claims diminished at all by the fair share act. Rather, she should be free to target the responsible parties “jointly and severally.”
Impact on Future Cases
This will have a major effect on future cases. The analysis provided by superior court was highly persuasive, as to be useful for judges and litigants to essentially ignore the Fair Share Act, absent negligence by the Plaintiff. Plus, many times, it will be impossible for the plaintiff to have been negligent. Examples include vehicle accidents where the plaintiff is a passenger. Or, another example: the plaintiff was a pedestrian lawfully in crosswalk, following the traffic signal.
Contact our Pittsburgh lawyers with any question about your injury claim: bike accident, e-bike or e-scooter injury, or other claim) or how joint and several liability could work.
