This article examines the various issues and legal concepts regarding apportionment of damages between parties presented in a recent Supreme Court of Florida decision. The relationship between comparative negligence, joint and several liability, and contribution among joint tortfeasors is discussed. The author is critical of the court's focusing its analysis on the collateral issue of contribution among tortfeasors rather than on the central issue of the case-joint and several liability. In addition, the potential inconsistencies between the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and the underlying principles of Hoffman v. Jones are noted, and the author urges resolution of those conflicts.
Jeffrey R. Surlas,
Contribution Act Construed-Should Joint And Several Liability Have Been Considered First?,
30 U. Miami L. Rev.
Available at: http://repository.law.miami.edu/umlr/vol30/iss3/8