American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court
case brief summary
578 P.2d 899 (Cal. 1978)
CASE FACTS
Defendant race sponsor filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, seeking indemnity from the parents of plaintiff race participant and seeking a declaration of the "allocable negligence" of plaintiff's parents, who were not named as parties in an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for injuries incurred in a motorcycle race. The trial court denied defendant's motion, the court of appeal granted a peremptory writ of mandate, and the court ordered a hearing on its own motion.
DISCUSSION
The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its order, which denied defendant race sponsor leave to file its proposed cross-complaint, and to proceed in accordance with the court's views, because defendant, as a named defendant, could file a cross-complaint against any person, named as a party or not, from whom defendant sought total or partial indemnity.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vBLWdWQqYKIw0-OL-QIl5bKcXODDIGTNQ_6TnnRsO4vEi9xIsBR4b8dHu83qpbeRiN_-JDQIfKrxtWHZz23LAP2GZSv4-dz8uJ_oWiq2AOzgPpGF4EOdwWcZX-HvNUKoqjaQXyN1Pvvd7VvaumQ9Z4CZjzrLHY-yXsoL0S3JDjEuwz9Sr1zuey4hctN2YANbeKnDUFeWiQpllMJPhnsC6UjCTDZ_m1l3cfxK8biw3p-Zo6MSgVVKyE0noSVTnniiRqPFq48N4sJINN=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_skJcUFRt_uyd6o4elEQxL-mpUqKWlMfC1n-XhcIKZ1q5iC4dM1fO4w30xok8vc_Dv637d76vC4-OL_X4IYWJg45tpqmvmHjXIjlHv2EgHun6ojf0u9gPkAQ6K3CWM3wiUDVlxnqN05YXfmyiLjlRLEsc6V4pxBKbRnPNORC0SWS5ZAFWY7ynC9k1X2ylIAWFh_z7WrojKGMZCLmfR8ngqPjjRpWozJzhXM2h3xVW4kq5a0hRw3adTaJYJ5pp2KNfmOiwbB-_xH81U=s0-d)
![](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uUCbagDaLRgFI5bklW9vzWK9QsqobC6nnyp198_hOBV1YUG8SNjeY28YQnu3wvst9sY4QKWv-bzY2N7evCk_FFgYJLP3OVefzrO8ZEW9aE4R1qKRqk-Ed1TIJh7XmYErChzQrGQZByhbOUxLK3ETyW80LQYgn2s3O-MybBT7ScxfRk0GOkscYFwW20dURlk1gIeHrbiZiyoXG_gBqlDxk-_sM33LDnopOXPk8kO_1jDRQLAn3bL9drScAgg4NsqPgsvZSSh52QULIz=s0-d)
578 P.2d 899 (Cal. 1978)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The court ordered a
hearing on its own motion after the Court of Appeal (California)
granted a peremptory writ of mandate, for which defendant race
sponsor had petitioned following the denial of defendant's motion for
leave to file a cross-complaint by the trial court in an action
brought by plaintiff race participant to recover damages incurred
during a motorcycle race.CASE FACTS
Defendant race sponsor filed a motion for leave to file a cross-complaint, seeking indemnity from the parents of plaintiff race participant and seeking a declaration of the "allocable negligence" of plaintiff's parents, who were not named as parties in an action brought by plaintiff to recover damages for injuries incurred in a motorcycle race. The trial court denied defendant's motion, the court of appeal granted a peremptory writ of mandate, and the court ordered a hearing on its own motion.
DISCUSSION
- The court issued a writ of mandate, directing the trial court to permit defendant to file a cross-complaint against unjoined alleged concurrent tortfeasors.
- The court found that joint and several liability did not conflict with comparative negligence, so each tortfeasor whose negligence was a proximate cause of an indivisible injury remained liable for all compensable damages attributable to that injury.
- The court modified the equitable indemnity doctrine to permit a right of indemnity, under which liability among multiple tortfeasors would be apportioned on a comparative negligence basis, which was an evolution of the common law right of comparative indemnity.
The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate and directed the trial court to vacate its order, which denied defendant race sponsor leave to file its proposed cross-complaint, and to proceed in accordance with the court's views, because defendant, as a named defendant, could file a cross-complaint against any person, named as a party or not, from whom defendant sought total or partial indemnity.
Suggested Study Aids For Tort Law
No comments:
Post a Comment