Last Updated: Jun 23, 2021
In March, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found in dicta in Spencer v. Johnson that the Fair Share Act is only implicated when the plaintiff’s comparative negligence is at issue. Prior to the Fair Share Act, when two or more parties were jointly and severally liable for a tortious act, each party was independently liable for the full extent of the injuries stemming from the tortious act no matter their proportion of liability. Thus, any defendant could be responsible for satisfying the entire judgment, even if they were only partially at fault. However, in 2011, the Fair Share Act was enacted in Pennsylvania to substantially limit the application of joint and several liability in civil cases. Pursuant to the Act, individual defendants are generally only responsible for their proportionate share of a judgment. The most prominent exception to the Act is that a tortfeasor found 60 percent or more liable could be responsible for satisfying the entire damage award.
In March, a two-judge panel of the Superior Court issued an Opinion regarding the scope and application of the Fair Share Act in a case involving significant injuries sustained by a pedestrian who was struck by an automobile owned by his wife’s employer. The Court held that the Fair Share Act does not apply unless there is a finding that the plaintiff was comparatively negligent. Therefore, the traditional rules of contributory negligence that existed before the Fair Share Act was enacted would apply to the facts of this case. The defendants asked the Superior Court for re-argument in front of the entire Superior Court. This was recently denied.
The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, of which the Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) is a member, had filed a proposed amicus brief in this case asking the Superior Court to hear re-argument in this case in front of the entire Superior Court.
While this case was not a health care case and thus does not fall under the ambit of MCARE, PAMED will continue to monitor the effects of this case going forward should a similar case involve a health care provider.
A copy of the Superior Court’s opinion may be accessed here.