Torts was interesting today. We are covering “causation,” which is one of the elements of a negligence claim that the plaintiff has to prove to win a case – kinda. Anyway, to make a longer story short, we were specifically talking about “alternative liability,” which is employed when there are two defendants that are equally liable for a single claim brought by a plaintiff. There are loose restrictions that must be present when using alternative liability, which are:
1. Each defendant must be negligent
2. Proper parties. Generally, there can’t be too many defendants.
3. Harm to the plaintiff.
4. Simultaneous actions by the defendants.
5. Plaintiff can’t prove which defendant is negligent.
6. Defendant has superior knowledge of negligence.
If the plaintiff can show 1-6, or the court finds 1-6 present, then the burden of proof shifts from the plaintiff to the defendant. At this point, if the jury finds for the plaintiff, then both defendants are equally fully liable. That is, if the jury determines that the plaintiff is to be awarded $1,000,000 then the plaintiff can select one of the defendants to pay the full amount. It is up to the defendants to sort out the costs on their own, in a separate matter.
My question is, can the defendants, who are both equally liable, but only one of which will be selected by the plaintiff to pay the damages, attempt to persuade the plaintiff to chose the other defendant?