Torts

Alabama (Montgomery)
Alabama, which joined the union as the 22nd state in 1819, is located in the
southern United States and nicknamed the Heart of Dixie. The region that
became Alabama was occupied by American Indians as early as some 10,000
years ago. Europeans reached the area in the 16th century. During the first
half of the 19th century, cotton and slave labor were central to Alabamas
economy. The state played a key role in the American Civil War; its capital,
Montgomery, was the Confederacys first capital. Following the war,
segregation of blacks and whites prevailed throughout much of the South. In
the mid-20th century, Alabama was at the center of the American Civil Rights
Movement and home to such pivotal events as the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
In the early 21st century, the states economy was fueled in part by jobs in
aerospace, agriculture, auto production and the service sector.
Liability
Joint and Several
Economic Damages
Applies
Matkin v. Smith, 643 So. 2d 949 (Ala. 1994).
Non-Economic Damages
Applies
See above.
May a Jury Allocate Fault

Among All Persons
Contributing to an Injury?
No
Springer v. Jefferson County, 595 So. 2d 1381 (Ala. 1992)

(holding that a defendant is precluded from arguing another
tortfeasors negligence unless act or omission of other
tortfeasor was an intervening cause).
Market Share Liability
No
Defenses
Comparative Negligence
No
Contributory negligence is a defense.

Serio v. Merrell, Inc., 941 So. 2d 960 (Ala. 2006);Ex parte
Goldsen, 783 So. 2d 53 (Ala. 2000).
Assumption of Risk
Yes
The affirmative defense of assumption of the risk requires

that the defendant prove (1) that the plaintiff had knowledge
of, and an appreciation of, the danger the plaintiff faced;
and (2) that the plaintiff voluntarily consented to bear the
risk posed by that danger.
Pittman v. United Toll Sys., LLC, 882 So. 2d 842 (Ala.
2003).
Product Misuse
Yes
Kelly v. M. Trigg Enter., Inc., 605 So. 2d 1185 (Ala.

1992); Banner Welders, Inc. v. Knighton, 425 So. 2d 441
(Ala. 1982).
Compliance With
Government Standards
No
Evidence of compliance with standards is admissible as to

whether a product is defective, but is not a complete
defense.
General Motors Corp. v. Jernigan, 883 So. 2d 646 (Ala.
2006); General Motors Corp. v. Edwards, 482 So. 2d 1176
(Ala. 1985).
Statute of Repose
None
A former provision of the Ala. Code, 6-5-502, was held

unconstitutional in Lankford v. Sullivan, Long & Hagerty,
416 So. 2d 996 (Ala. 1982).
Government Contractor
Defense
Yes, but unclear as

to whether it the
defense is
available beyond
military equipment
Compare Pietz v. Orthopedic Equip. Co., 562 So. 2d 152

(Ala. 1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 823 (1990) (military
equipment only) with Hanks v. Courtesy Ford Sales, Inc.,
574 So. 2d 731 (Ala. 1990) (involving dump truck); see also
Burgess v. Colorado Serum Co., 772 F.2d 844 (11th Cir.
1985) (finding that Alabama would not extend the
government contractor defense beyond military equipment).
McLawsuits Permitted? Can a

food manufacturer, distributor,
seller, or retailer be sued based
on an individual's weight gain,
obesity, or obesity-related health
condition?
No restriction
Compensatory Damages
Is there a statutory limit on
economic damages?
No
Alabama enacted a $400,000 limit on non-economic

damages awards and a $1 million total limit on medical
malpractice awards; these statutes were declared
unconstitutional in Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n, 592 So.
2d 156 (Ala. 1991), and Smith v. Schulte, 671 So. 2d 1334
(Ala.), cert. denied, 517 U.S. 1220 (1996). But see Ex parte
Apicella, 809 So. 2d 865 (Ala. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S.
1086 (2002) (holding that right to jury trial under the
Alabama Constitution does not restrict the Legislature from
removing from the jury the unbridled right to punish)

(overruling Smith v. Schulte); Mobile Infirmary Med. Center
v. Hodgen, 884 So. 2d 801 (Ala. 2003) (noting erosion of
support for the Moore decision but declining to revisit the
opinion because the Legislature had, subsequent to Moore,
chosen to enact a new law capping punitive damages rather
than adopt limits on both non-economic and punitive
damages awards).

non-economic damages?
No
Is recovery for medical

monitoring permitted without
physical injury?
No
Hinton v. Monsanto, 813 So. 2d 827 (Ala. 2001) (refusing

to allow cause of action for monitoring when plaintiff could
not show medical present injury).
Yes
In nonphysical injury cases against larger businesses:

limited to greater of three times compensatory damages or
$500,000; in nonphysical injury cases against small
businesses with a net worth of less than $2 million: limited
to $50,000 or 10% of net worth up to $200,000; in personal
injury cases: limited to the greater of three times
compensatory damages or $1.5 million. Limits are adjusted
at three-year intervals from January 1, 2003 in accordance
with the Consumer Price Index.
Punitive Damages
Is there a statutory limit?
Ala. Code 6-11-21.
Is there any restriction on

imposing multiple punitive
damage awards for same
conduct?
No
Does the state receive a

portion of the punitive
damage award?
No
What standard is used?
Clear and convince

evidence
Ala. Code 6-11-20.
No
Civil actions against corporations may be brought in either

the county where a substantial part of the events or
omissions giving rise to the claim occurred or real property
that is the subject of a claim is located; the county of the
corporation's principal office in Alabama; or the country in
which the plaintiff resides, or if the plaintiff is not an
Procedures
Venue
Conducive to Abuse Does the statute permit
forum shopping?
individual, where the plaintiff had its principal place of

business when the cause of action accrued, if the
corporation does business by agent in the county where the
plaintiff resides. If none of the above apply, a civil action
may be brought in any county in which the corporation was
doing business by agent at the time of the accrual of the
cause of action.
Ala. Code 6-3-7.
For actions arising outside of Alabama, if the defendant
shows that "there exists a more appropriate forum" outside
of Alabama, "taking into account the location where the acts
giving rise to the action occurred, the convenience of the
parties and witnesses, and the interests of justice, the court
must dismiss the action without prejudice," the court may
require the defendant to file with the court a consent to
submit to the jurisdiction of the alternate forum, and consent
to waive a defense based on statute of limitations, if the
case is filed in a new forum within 60 days of dismissal.
Ala. Code 6-5-430.
Class Actions
Is there a right to an
immediate appeal of class
certification?
Yes
A court's order certifying a class or refusing to certify a class

is appealable in the same manner as a final order to the
appellate court which would have had jurisdiction over the
appeal from a final order in the action. The appeal must be
filed within 42 days of the order certifying or refusing the
class. The actions of the trial court are then stayed during
the pending of appeal.
Ala. Code 6-5-642.
Appeal Bonds
Does the amount of the
required bond place undue
pressure on the defendant to
settle rather than appeal?
Yes
The required bond is twice the amount of the judgment in

any civil appeal.
Ala. Code 12-12-73.
Yes
Is there a cap to appeal
bonds in certain, very limited
instances?
In civil litigation under any legal theory involving a signatory,

a successor of a signatory, or an affiliate of a signatory to
the tobacco Master Settlement Agreement, the total
supersedeas bond that is required of all appellants
collectively shall not exceed $125 million, regardless of the
amount of the judgment.
Ala. Code 6-12-4.
Evidence
Has the state
adoptedDaubert, which
No
Martin v. Dyas, 896 So. 2d 436 (Ala. 2004).
requires the judge to act as a

"gatekeeper" against
unreliable expert testimony in
civil actions?
Private Lawsuits Under Consumer Protection Statutes

Must each individual plaintiff
show that he or she relied on
the allegedly unfair or
deceptive practice at issue?
Defendants acts
must cause
monetary damage
Ala. Code 8-19-10(a).
What is the level of scienter

(intent) required of a
defendant?
Not provided
Are class actions permitted?
No
Ala. Code 8-19-10(f).
Are statutory damages (an

amount set by statute)
provided for even if a plaintiff
cannot show an actual
economic injury?
Yes
Provides for award of the greater of actual damages or

$100.
Does the plaintiff

automatically receive treble
(triple) damages regardless
of the intent of the
defendant?
No
Up to three times any actual damage, in the court's

discretion. Ala. Code 8-19-10(a)(2).
Does every prevailing

plaintiff receive attorneys'
fees and costs?
Yes
On a finding by the court that an action or counterclaim was

frivolous or brought in bad faith or for the purpose of
harassment, the court shall award to the defendant
reasonable attorney's fees and costs.
Ala. Code 8-19-10(a)(1).
Ala. Code 8-19-10(a)(3).
Is conduct authorized by or
in compliance with a state or
federal statute or regulation
exempt from the act?
No
The Alabama statute does not specifically exempt acts or

transactions in compliance with the regulations of an
administrative agency. It does, however, include a
statement indicating that due consideration and weight shall
be given to the legal interpretations of the Federal Trade
Commission and the federal courts relating to (5)(a)(1) of
the Federal Trade Commission Act.
Ala. Code 8-19-6.
Jury Service
Automatic exemptions and
disqualifications based on
occupation eliminated?
Yes
Are the grounds for obtaining

an excuse from service
closely defined?
Yes
"Undue or extreme physical or financial hardship" is limited

to when an individual would: (1) be required to abandon a
person under his or her personal care or supervision due to
the impossibility of obtaining an appropriate substitute
caregiver; (2) incur costs that would have a substantial
adverse impact on the payment of the individual's
necessary daily living expenses or on those for whom he or
she provides the principal means of support; or (3) suffer
physical hardship that would result in illness or disease."
Undue or extreme physical or financial hardship does not
exist solely based on the fact that a prospective juror will be
required to be absent from his or her place of employment.
Ala. Code 12-16-63(b).
May jurors automatically

postpone and reschedule
service?
Yes
Jurors have the right to one automatic postponement with a

simple and convenient method of rescheduling jury service
to a more convenient time within six months.
Ala. Code 12-16-63.1.
Is a juror's employment and

leave time adequately
protected during service?
Yes
An employer may not discharge or take any adverse

employment action against an employee solely because the
person serves on a jury. Employers may not require an
employee to use annual, vacation, or sick leave time for the
period in which an employee serves on a jury.
Ala. Code 12-16-8(b), 12-16-8.1(a).
Is there a limit on the

frequency of jury service?
Yes
Individuals may not be required to serve more than once

every two years.
Ala. Code 12-16-75(b).
Is the length of service

limited to no more than one
day or one trial?
No
Juror per diem
N/A
Jurors are generally summoned to serve for one week.

Ala. Code 12-16-70.
Employers are required to compensate full-time employees

during jury service.
Ala. Code 12-16-8(c).
Is additional compensation
available on lengthy trials?
N/A
See above.
Is the potential penalty for

nonappearance sufficient to
encourage participation?
Yes
Fine of up to $300 and/or imprisonment no more than 10

days.
Problem Jurisdictions
Ala. Code 12-16-82.
Montgomery and Macon

Counties
Named as Judicial Hellholes by the American Tort Reform

Association.
As with the other forty-nine states, Alabama law has a statute of limitations for filing a
personal injury claim. That is, a certain period of time within which a lawsuit must be filed to
preserve the claim. This article addresses the different kinds of claims and the exceptions to
them.
Generally speaking, Alabama law has a two year statute of limitations for personal injury suits. For
example, if you involved in a truck accident and suffer injuries, you have two years to file suit against
the truck driver and trucking company. The same period applies to all types of accidents.
The two year period also applies to fatal accidents and wrongful death lawsuits, which are not
technically "personal injury" claims under Alabama law, but are treated the same for practical
reasons.
However, they are very important exceptions to the two-year period. First, the period can be "tolled"
or extended if the injured party is a minor or incompetent. The purpose here is to protect
the victim until they can make their own decision or have a court-appointed guardian decide for
them. Second, the two-year period can be tolled if the injury is not yet known, such as in the case
where a doctor's error in performing a medical procedure does not manifest itself until after two
years from the date of the procedure.
The overwhelming majority of personal injury claims are based in tort theories such as negligence,
assault, recklessness, product liability, etc. "Tort" is defined as a civil wrong that justifies an award of
monetary compensation. So, Alabama law puts all tort claims in one group for purposes of the
statute of limitations.
In those instances where a person is injured and the two year period has already elapsed for a tort
claim, a claim for breach of contract might be the only viable option, which has a six year statute of
limitations. A contract claim can be brought in those instances where an injury is due to a party's
failure to comply with the terms of a contract.
A good example of this occurs on construction sites where general contractors agree with the owner
to provide for overall job site safety. When an employee of a subcontractor is injured, and the injury
can be traced to a breach of the general contractor's promise to provide for workplace safety, such a
claim can be brought as a contract claim, unaffected by the two year limitation.
Regardless of the specific limitation period that applies, it is wise to consult with an Alabama
personal injury lawyer about your specific situation in order to avoid a complete forfeiture of your
claim.
Alaska (Juneau)
The first human beings arrived in Alaska between 15,000 and 13,000
BC. At that time Alasksa was part of a land bridge that exetnded
across to Siberia. People followed the herds of animal they hunted.
Europeans arrived in the area in the 18th century. In 1741 a Dane
called Vitus Bering led a Russian expedition to Alaska. They
discovered there was great wealth in Alaska in the form of animal furs.
Unfortunately they also brought diseases to which the native people
had no immunity. The British arrived in 1778 when Captain Cook
sailed there. Then in 1784 a Russian named Grigori Shelikhov made
the first permanent European settlement in Alaska. However by the
1860s the Russians had lost interest in Alaska. Over-hunting had
depleted the supply of furs and it was difficult to supply bases such a
long way off. So they decided to try and sell Alaska to the Americans.
In 1867 US Secretary of State William Henry Seward signed a treaty
to buy Alaska for $7.2 million - less than 2 cents an acre. However it
took 6 months to persuade Congress to ratify the treaty. Alaska
formally passed to the USA on 18 October 1867.
AS 09.10.070. Actions For Torts, For Injury to Personal

Property, For Certain Statutory Liabilities, and Against Peace
Officers and Coroners to Be Brought in Two Years.
(a) Except as otherwise provided by law, a person may not bring an action (1) for libel, slander,
assault, battery, seduction, or false imprisonment, (2) for personal injury or death, or injury to
the rights of another not arising on contract and not specifically provided otherwise; (3) for
taking, detaining, or injuring personal property, including an action for its specific recovery; (4)
upon a statute for a forfeiture or penalty to the state; or (5) upon a liability created by statute,
other than a penalty or forfeiture; unless the action is commenced within two years of the
accrual of the cause of action.
(b) A person may not bring an action against a peace officer or coroner upon a liability incurred
by the doing of an act in an official capacity or by the omission of an official duty, including the
nonpayment of money collected upon an execution, unless brought within two years. This
subsection does not apply to an action for an escape.
Alaska is the only American state that employs a variation of the English Rule,
whereby the losing party in a civil case must pay the prevailing partys attorneys
fees. In recent years, advocates of tort reform have praised Alaskas Civil Rule 82 as
a model for tort reform to help rid the overburdened courts of low merit claims. But
does Rule 82 really reduce meritless litigation? In this study, I compare civil case
filings in the District of Alaska to a sample of other comparable federal district
courts. I found that, although filings in the District of Alaska were lower than the
national average, they were indistinguishable from the remainder of the sample.
Other measures also failed to demonstrate any significant differences between civil
cases in the District of Alaska and the other districts. These results suggest that
reformers looking to reduce meritless litigation should look elsewhere for model
reform measures.
The "tort reform" statute passed by the Alaska Legislature in 1997 continues to
whittle away, automatically, year after year, at the real damages available to Alaska
families who have lost a loved one due to a defendant's negligent or reckless
conduct. The 1997 legislation limited the amount of "non-economic damages" that
can be recovered in a wrongful death action to $400,000, or $8,000 times the
person's life expectancy, whichever is greater. AS 09.17.010 These amounts have
not changed since 1997. The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics states that
someone would need $520,712 in today's dollars to equal the purchasing power of
$400,000 in 1997. Even when "tort reform" was passed in 1997, $400,000 was a
modest amount for the death of a loved one. In real terms, the available damages
decrease every year with the march of inflation. The $400,000 limit is also
particularly harsh when the deceased did not have substantial economic earnings,
such as a homemaker. Even assuming $400,000 was an appropriate limit when it
was adopted in 1997, that amount should in fairness be updated by the current
legislature to account for inflation and then indexed to the rate of future inflation.
This limit also remains ripe for a constitutional challenge in court.
Arizona (Phoenix)
Arizona, the Grand Canyon state, achieved statehood on February 14, 1912,
the last of the 48 coterminous United States to be admitted to the union.
Originally part of New Mexico, the land was ceded to the United States in
1848, and became a separate territory in 1863. Copper was discovered in
1854, and copper mining was Arizonas premier industry until the 1950s. After
World War II, the widespread availability of refrigeration and air conditioning
caused Arizonas population to boom and Phoenix to become one of the
fastest growing cities in America. Arizona is the sixth largest state in the
country in terms of area. Its population has always been predominantly urban,
particularly since the mid-20th century, when urban and suburban areas
began growing rapidly at the expense of the countryside. Some scholars
believe that the states name comes from a Basque phrase meaning place of
oaks while others attribute it to a Tohono Oodham (Papago) Indian phrase
meaning place of the young (or little) spring.
In order to maintain a negligence/tort action in Arizona, an injury victim must

establish the four elements of a tort. Those four elements include:
Duty
Breach
Causation
Damages
In other words, the injury victim must prove that the defendant had a duty to
the victim, the defendant breached that duty, and the breach of the duty
caused damages.
Some previous rulings on causation include:
Causation is generally a question of fact for the jury to
resolve. Fehribach v. Smith , 200 Ariz. 69, 73, 16, 22 P.3d 508, 512
(App. 2001).
Causation does not have to be established with absolute certainty so
as to exclude every other conclusion. Morrison v. Acton , 68 Ariz. 27,
33, 198 P.2d 590, 594 (1948).
To be a proximate cause, Defendants conduct may have contributed
only slightly to the injury. Id.(Emphasis added); Tellez v. Saban , 188
Ariz. 165, 171, 933 P.2d 1233 (App. 1996); Ontiveros v. Borak , 136
Ariz. 500-505, 667 P.2d 200 (1983).
The court examines the total evidence regarding causation and
determines whether there is a genuine controversy for the jury to
decide. A party may prove proximate causation by presenting facts
from which a causal relationship may be inferred, but the party cannot
leave causation to the jurys speculation. Salica v. Tucson Heart
Hospital-Carondelet , 224 Ariz. 414, 419, 16, 231 P.3d 946, 951 (App.
2010).
Arizona follows the doctrine of pure comparative negligence. The comparative negligence
statutes are found in A.R.S. 12-2501 et seq. These statutes abolished joint and several
liability in most instances and enacted a several liability law. See A.R.S. 12-2506 - 2509.
The Arizona statute is based on similar statutes in the State of Kansas. In reality, the
comparative negligence statutory scheme in Arizona is actually a blend of the Uniform
Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) and the Uniform Fault Act.
The comparative negligence laws provides that each defendant is only liable for the amount
of plaintiff's full damages allocated to that defendant in direct proportion to the defendant's
percentage of fault and a separate judgment shall be entered against the defendant for that
amount. In assessing percentages of fault, the trier of fact considers the fault of persons who
have contributed to the alleged injury, regardless of whether the person was, or could have
been, named as a party to the suit. The law retains joint and several liability where the party
is responsible for the fault of another (i.e., in an agency situation), if both parties were acting
in concert, or if a person was acting as an agent or servant of the party, and in actions
relating to hazardous waste or substances or solid waste disposal sites. The exceptions to
the abolition of joint and several liability have yet to be defined by our appellate courts.
In 1993, the legislature unsuccessfully sought to introduce a tort reform package that
addressed a number of areas in civil litigation, including the comparative negligence laws.
This measure was defeated in the general election in November, 1994.
Arkansas (Little Rock)
Little Rock, located in central Arkansas, is the state's capital and largest city. The name is derived
from La Petite Roche (the "little rock" in French), a small rock formation on the south bank of the
Arkansas River that served as a navigational landmark by early river travelers. The rock formation
can still be seen at Riverfront Park in downtown Little Rock. The formation was first noted and
named by the French explorer, Bernard de la Harpe, in 1722. The first white settler was a fur
trapper named William Lewis, who built a house there in 1812.
Little Rock was no more than a minor wilderness town when Arkansas became a territory in 1819.
At that time, the capital was down river at Arkansas Post, but owing to the location of Little Rock,
on the banks of the Arkansas River in the center of the new territory, the territorial capital was
moved from Arkansas Post to Little Rock in 1821. Ten years later, Little Rock was incorporated as
a city.
Liability
Joint and Several
Economic Damages
Modified
Joint liability has been abolished, except in concert of action

cases. If the trial court finds that any defendant's share will
not be "reasonably collectible," the remaining defendants'
shares shall be adjusted as follows: if a defendant is found
to be more than 10% but less than 50% at fault, the court
may increase that party's proportionate share up to 10
percentage points; if a defendant is found to be more than
50% at fault, the court may increase that party's
proportionate share up to 20 percentage points.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-201, 16-55-203.
Modified
See above.

Among All Persons
No
The Arkansas Supreme Court held the section of the Civil

Justice Reform Act of 2003 permitting allocation of fault to
nonparties (Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-202) unconstitutional
in Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 WL 1218362
(Ark., Apr. 30, 2009).
No
Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co., 994 F.2d 1295 (8th Cir.

1993).
Yes, modified
If the plaintiff's fault is less than the fault of the party or

parties from whom the plaintiff seeks to recover damages,
then the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of his
damages after they have been diminished in proportion to
the degree of his or her own fault.
Defenses
Ark. Code Ann. 16-64-122(b).
Assumption of Risk
No
Product Misuse
Uncertain
Compliance With
No
The Arkansas Supreme Court determined inDawson v.

Fulton, 745 S.W.2d 617 (Ark. 1988), that following adoption
of comparative negligence, assumption of the risk is no
longer applicable in Arkansas as a separate theory; see
also Ouachita Wilderness Inst., Inc. v. Mergen, 947 S.W.2d
780 (Ark. 1997).
Compliance with standards is admissible as evidence that a

product was not defective, but is not a complete defense.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-116-105(a).
Statute of Repose
In some cases
Use of a product beyond its anticipated life by a consumer

where the consumer knew or should have known the
anticipated life of the product. Such use may be considered
as evidence of fault on the part of the consumer.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-116-105(c).
Defense
In some cases
A contractor who performs work in accordance with a

government contract under the direct supervision of the
agency, is not liable unless it is negligent in performing
under the contract.
Smith v. Rogers Group, Inc., 72 S.W.3d 450 (Ark. 2002).
McLawsuits Permitted?
No restriction
Can a food manufacturer,

distributor, seller, or retailer be
sued based on an individual's
weight gain, obesity, or obesityrelated health condition?
economic damages?
No
Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-212(a).

No
See above.

monitoring permitted without
physical injury?
Uncertain
Baker v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories Div., 992 S.W.2d 797,

798 n.2 (Ark. 1999) (class certification improper in action
where plaintiffs agreed to treat medical monitoring as type
of damages instead of separate cause of action); see also
In re Pempro, 230 F.R.D. 555, 569 (E.D. Ark. 2005)
("Arkansas has rejected medical monitoring as a cause of
action, and questions its availability as a remedy.").
Yes
Punitive damages are limited to $250,000 or three times

compensatory damages, not to exceed $1 million. The
limits are to be adjusted for inflation every three years
beginning January 1, 2006.
Punitive Damages
Ark. Code Ann. 16-55-208.

A constitutional challenge was pending at the time of this
publication. See Beverly Enterp., Inc., v. Reaton, No. 08834 (Ark., Feb. 12, 2009) (appeal transferred to Arkansas
Supreme Court on motion).

conduct?
No

damage award?
No
Clear and
convincing
evidence
Procedures
Venue
Conducive to Abuse Does the statute permit
forum shopping?
Unreported
Actions against domestic corporations and foreign

corporations that qualify to do business in Arkansas "may
be brought in the county in which it is situated or has its
principal office or place of business, or in which its chief
officer resides."
Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-104; Cavette v. Ford Motor Credit
Co., 545 S.W.2d 612 (Ark. 1977).
Plaintiffs may bring lawsuits against foreign corporations not
registered to do business in Arkansas "in any county in
which there may be property of or debts owing to the
defendant."
In personal injury actions "where the accident which caused
the injury or death occurred outside this state, shall be
brought in the county in this state where the person injured
or killed resided at the time of injury or in any county in
which the defendant, or one (1) of several defendants,
resides or is summoned."
Ark. Code Ann. 16-60-112(c); Forest City Mach. Works
Inc. v. Colvin, 521 S.W.2d 206 (Ark. 1975).
When a court finds that, in the interest of substantial justice,
the action should be heard in another forum, the court may
stay or dismiss the action in whole or in part on any
conditions that may be just.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-4-101(D); Life of Am. Ins. Co. v. BakerLowe-Fox Ins. Marketing, Inc., 873 S. W. 2d 537 (Ark.
1994).
Class Actions
certification?
Yes
Ark. R. App. Proc. 2(a)(9).
No
The maximum appeal bond that may be required in any civil

action under any legal theory is limited to $25 million,
regardless of the amount of the judgment.
Appeal Bonds
Ark Code Ann. 16-55-214.
Evidence
Has the state
adoptedDaubert, which
Yes
Farm Bur. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Foote, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark.

2000).
requires the judge to act as a

"gatekeeper" against
unreliable expert testimony in
civil actions?

Must each individual plaintiff
show that he or she relied on
the allegedly unfair or
deceptive practice at issue?
Causation

defendant?
Not addressed
Yes

provided for even if a plaintiff
cannot show an actual
economic injury?
No
Does the plaintiff

defendant?
No

fees and costs?
Yes
A plaintiff must suffer actual damage or injury as a result of

violation of Act.
Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-113(f).
Actual damages only.

Elderly or disabled individuals may recover punitive

damages, in addition to actual damages.
Ark Code Ann. 4-88-204.
Yes
This chapter does not apply to: (1) Advertising or practices

which are subject to and which comply with any rule, order,
or statute administered by the Federal Trade
Commission.
Ark. Code Ann. 4-88-101(1).
Jury Service
Yes
Are the grounds for obtaining

an excuse from service
closely defined?
No
A person may be excused from jury service when the state

of his health or that of his family reasonably requires his
absence, or when, for any reason, his own interests or
those of the public will, in the opinion of the court, be
materially injured by his attendance.

service?
No

Yes
An employer may not subject an employee to discharge,

loss of sick leave, loss of vacation time, or any form of
penalty on account of his or her absence from employment
by reason of jury duty, if the employee gave the employer
reasonable notice of the jury service obligation. Violation is
a Class A misdemeanor.

Yes
Citizens are required to serve no more than once every two

years.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-31-104(a).

day or one trial?
No
Juror per diem
$15-50
No petit juror shall be required to report for jury duty on

more than 10 days or for more than a 4-month period.
Compensation is set at $50 each day for persons selected

and seated as members of a grand jury or petit jury. If an
eligible person is excused or otherwise not selected and
seated as a juror, compensation is not less than $15 each
day.
No

No
A person who fails to respond to a summons may be fined

not less than $5 nor more than $500, and may be held in
contempt of court.
Ark. Code Ann. 16-32-106(d).
None reported
2010 Arkansas Code

Title 21 - Public Officers and Employees
Chapter 9 - Liability of State and Local Governments
Subchapter 3 - Liability of Political Subdivisions
21-9-301 - Tort liability -- Immunity declared.
21-9-301. Tort liability -- Immunity declared.
(a) It is declared to be the public policy of the State of Arkansas that all counties,
municipal corporations, school districts, special improvement districts, and all other
political subdivisions of the state and any of their boards, commissions, agencies,
authorities, or other governing bodies shall be immune from liability and from suit for
damages except to the extent that they may be covered by liability insurance.
(b) No tort action shall lie against any such political subdivision because of the acts of
its agents and employees.
Arkansas Personal Injury Laws &

Statutory Rules
Deadlines to File Arkansas Injury Lawsuits

Like every state, Arkansas has its own deadline for filing an injuryrelated case in court. This law, known as the statute of limitations,
gives you three years after an accident to file your lawsuit in court.
Usually, this deadline is set three years from the date of your
accident or whatever triggered your injuries. If for some reason you
couldn't discover your injuries until some date after the accident,
however, the three years may run from this discovery date instead
of the accident date.
Time Limit for a Claim Against a City, County or Arizona
State Government
Where these claims are permitted, the time limit to file a claim
against an Arizona government entity is five years. See: Injury
Claims Against The Government
The Comparative Fault Rule in Arkansas

Its not unusual for an individual or company, when faced with a
claim for compensation, to argue that the injured person is partly or
totally at fault for the accident. Arkansas uses a
modified comparative fault rule in cases where an injured person
is found to share some level of blame for causing his or her injuries.
Heres an example of Arkansass modified comparative fault rule in
action. Suppose that youre driving one day, traveling a few miles
per hour over the speed limit. As you pass through an intersection
under a green light, an oncoming driver makes a left turn right in
from of you and hits your car, injuring you. The court determines
that you are 10 percent at fault (since you were speeding) and the
other driver is 90 percent at fault (since she made an unsafe left
turn). If your total damages are $10,000, Arkansass modified
comparative fault rule applies to allow you to collect $9,000, or the
$10,000 total minus $1,000 that represents your 10 percent share of
the fault.
It's important to note that Arkansass modified comparative fault
rule reduces your damages as long as you are less than 50 percent
responsible for the accident. If you are 50 percent or more at fault,
this rule operates to prevent you from collecting damages from any
other at-fault party.
Arkansas requires its courts to apply the modified comparative fault
rule in negligence cases. Dont be surprised, however, if an
insurance adjuster also brings up comparative fault during
settlement negotiations.
Arkansas Auto Insurance Laws

When it comes to auto accidents, Arkansas is a fault or at-fault
state. Drivers injured in car accidents in Arkansas have several
options: they may decide to pursue compensation through insurance
companies -- under their own coverage or through the other driver's
insurance carrier -- or by filing a case in court.
Owner Liability For Injury by a Dog or Other Animal

There is no specific statute in Arkansas governing personal injury
liability for dog bites. Owners will be held liable for injuries caused
by their dog (or other animal) if the injured party can show that the
owner should have known the animal was dangerous. This is
known as the one bite rule.
No Damage Caps in Arkansas Injury Cases

Damages in injury cases are capped, or limited, by law in some
states. Damage caps limit the amount of compensation an injured
person can receive. Many states limit the amount of non-economic
or pain and suffering damages and/or apply damage caps only to
certain types of cases, like medical malpractice lawsuits.
Arkansas has no caps on damages in injury cases. That's because
Article 5, Section 32 of the Arkansas state constitution specifically

prohibits these kinds of caps.
In Arkansas, the tort reform law enacted to reform Arkansas tort laws was known as the Civil Justice
Reform Act of 2003.
Some substantive laws, concepts and legal procedures that were affected or abolished by tort
reform included:
1. Collateral Source Rule - this rule prevents a court from knowing whether a Plaintiff's medical bills
have been paid by a third party, such as an insurance company, so that a court does not reduce the
Plaintiff's verdict based on that fact.
2. Joint of Several Liability - in cases where there was more than one defendant, either one
defendant or all defendants could be made to pay for the total verdict.
3. Medical Malpractice Suits - the legislature claimed that insurance companies stopped offering
medical malpractice insurance due to joint and several liability in malpractice cases.
4. Rules of Evidence - various rules of evidence were consequently affected by changes made to the
various tort laws.
5. Limits or "Caps" on Damages - as I mentioned the ultimate goal of tort reform was to control the
amount of money a Plaintiff would be awarded in any given tort suit. Tort reform, therefore, imposed
caps on the damages, both Compensatory Dmages (awared to compensate the Plaintiff for medical
bills, loss wages, pain and suffering, etc. that he or she incurred as a result of the tort) and Punitive
Damages (awarded to "punish," penalize, and deter a defendant of its tortious behavior)
Much of the Arkansas tort reform act has been declared unconstitutional and many of the laws
affected or abolished have since been restored. Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark.
241 (2009) was a case that challenged the constitutionality of the act arguing that it was tantamount
to a separation of powers. And most recently, in 2011, Arkansas declared its punitive damages cap
of $1million unconstitutional. The case was Bayer CorpScience LP v. Schafer, 2011 WL 6091323
(2011) where the Arkansas Supreme Court, in finding the cap unconstitutional, upheld a $42 million punitive
damages award.
California (Sacramento)
The first Spanish missionaries arrived in California in the 1700s, but California
didnt become a U.S. territory until 1847, as part of the treaty ending the
Mexican-American War. Shortly thereafter, the discovery of gold at Sutters Mill
in 1848 inspired a wave of settlers to head to the west coast in search of
fortune. In 1850 California became the 31st state, and is now the third largest
state behind Alaska and Texas. With millions of acres of farmland, California
leads the U.S. in agricultural production. The state is also home to famous
cultural institutions and national parks including: Hollywood, Disneyland,
Yosemite National Park, Alcatraz, Angel Island and the Golden Gate Bridge.
Tort laws govern violations involving harm, injury, or loss caused by one person to
another. Some common types of lawsuits that are covered by tort law include: personal
injury suits, property violations, and cases involving privacy rights.
Civil tort law is different from criminal law in that jail or prison time may not be imposed in a
tort case. Instead, the liable party (the tortfeasor) will usually have to pay the victim
monetary damages for their losses. Or, a judge may order the tortfeasor to stop doing their
tortious actions.
The tort laws in every state may vary with respects to different aspects of trial, including
jury guidelines, procedural matters, evidentiary hearings, liability and defenses, and damage
awards.
Is California Tort Law unique in any ways?

The tort laws of the state of California have several aspects that differ from federal laws and
the laws of other states. Some tort laws that may be unique to California include:
California Tort Claims Act: California has a law that allows tort lawsuits against a
government entity. The party filing against the state must usually give written notice of a
claim 6 months in advance of filing the actual suit.
Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA): This act places a cap (limit)
on the amount of monetary damages that a plaintiff may obtain for medical injuries. Other
California tort laws may also limit the amount of damages for other types of claims.
Evidence Guidelines: In the last decade, California has introduced a number of

changes to its guidelines regarding the use of evidence in court. These changes are often
called California Evidence Distinctions, as they are distinct from federal evidence
guidelines. The evidentiary changes cover a wide range of tort aspects.
Reckless Misconduct Provisions: Most states classify tort violations as either an

intentional act or negligence (unintentional or breach of duty) or intentional acts. California
includes a third category of liability, reckless misconduct. Reckless misconduct is basically
a willful disregard of the rights or safety of others. The addition of this intermediate, hybrid
category may often allow for a much higher amount of monetary recovery than a standard
negligence claim.
California tort laws may also contain other provisions not found in either federal laws or
other state laws. Some of these may be quite complex and may require an attorney to
interpret them. Also, the changes to the area of evidence mentioned above are particularly
complicated and are best approached through the expertise of a lawyer.
Do I need a California Lawyer for Tort Laws?

Californias tort laws are constantly being revised due tort reform policies. If you have
questions regarding a tort law, you may wish to consult with a California lawyer for
clarification. An experienced California attorney will be able to assist you with your tort claim
and provide you with much-needed advice.
Sources and Authority

Civil Code section 3333 provides: "For the breach of an obligation not arising from
contract, the measure of damages, except where otherwise expressly provided by this
code, is the amount which will compensate for all the detriment proximately caused
thereby, whether it could have been anticipated or not."
Civil Code section 3281 provides: "Every person who suffers detriment from the
unlawful act or omission of another, may recover from the person in fault a
compensation in money, which is called damages."
Civil Code section 3283 provides: "Damages may be awarded, in a judicial proceeding,
for detriment resulting after the commencement thereof, or certain to result in the
future."
Civil Code section 3359 provides: "Damages must, in all cases, be reasonable, and
where an obligation of any kind appears to create a right to unconscionable and grossly
oppressive damages, contrary to substantial justice, no more than reasonable damages
can be recovered."
Under Civil Code section 3333 "[t]ort damages are awarded to compensate a plaintiff for
all of the damages suffered as a legal result of the defendant's wrongful conduct."
(North American Chemical Co. v. Superior Court (1997) 59 Cal.App.4th 764, 786 [69
Cal.Rptr.2d 466], italics omitted.)
"Whatever its measure in a given case, it is fundamental that 'damages which are
speculative, remote, imaginary, contingent, or merely possible cannot serve as a legal
basis for recovery.' However, recovery is allowed if claimed benefits are reasonably
certain to have been realized but for the wrongful act of the opposing party." (Piscitelli v.
Friedenberg (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 953, 989 [105 Cal.Rptr.2d 88], internal citations
omitted.)
"In general, one who has been tortiously injured is entitled to be compensated for the
harm and the injured party must establish 'by proof the extent of the harm and the
amount of money representing adequate compensation with as much certainty as the
nature of the tort and the circumstances permit.' However, '[t]here is no general
requirement that the injured person should prove with like definiteness the extent of the
harm that he has suffered as a result of the tortfeasor's conduct. It is desirable that
responsibility for harm should not be imposed until it has been proved with reasonable
certainty that the harm resulted from the wrongful conduct of the person charged. It is
desirable, also, that there be definiteness of proof of the amount of damage as far as is
reasonably possible. It is even more desirable, however, that an injured person not be
deprived of substantial compensation merely because he cannot prove with complete
certainty the extent of harm he has suffered.' " (Clemente v. State of California (1985) 40
Cal.3d 202, 219 [219 Cal.Rptr. 445, 707 P.2d 818], internal citations omitted.)
"If plaintiff's inability to prove his damages with certainty is due to defendant's actions,
the law does not generally require such proof." (Clemente, supra, 40 Cal.3d at p. 219,
internal citations omitted.)
"While a defendant is liable for all the damage that his tortuous act proximately causes
to the plaintiff, regardless of whether or not it could have been anticipated, nevertheless
a proximate causal connection must still exist between the damage sustained by the
plaintiff and the defendant's wrongful act or omission, and the detriment inflicted on the
plaintiff must still be the natural and probable result of the defendant's conduct."
(Chaparkas v. Webb (1960) 178 Cal.App.2d 257, 260 [2 Cal.Rptr. 879], internal citations
omitted.)
Colorado (Denver)
Colorado, which joined the union as the 38th state in 1876, is Americas eighth
largest state in terms of land mass. Located in the Rocky Mountain region of
the western United States, the states abundant and varied natural resources
attracted the ancient Pueblo peoples and, later, the Plains Indians. First
explored by Europeans in the late 1500s (the Spanish referred to the region as
Colorado for its red-colored earth), the area was ceded to the United States
in 1848 with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the MexicanAmerican War (1846-48). In 1858, the discovery of gold in Colorado attracted
new settlers. During the Plains Indian Wars (1860s-80s), Colorados wild
frontier was the scene of intense fighting between Native Americans and white
settlers. In the 21st century, Colorado continues to rely on its natural
resources as well as agriculture and tourism to sustain its economy.
Types of Torts in Colorado Springs, Colorado

Negligence: Negligence is by far the most prevalent tort that results in litigation in Colorado
Springs, Colorado. Negligence is a failure to exercise the amount of care appropriate for
a certain situation, and causing harm to someone else as a result of this carelessness.
For instance, running a red light is inherently careless. If you run a red light, and cause
personal injury or property damage, you are liable for the harm you caused. Of course, this
is just one instance, and negligence can occur in practically any context.
Fraud: Unlike negligence, fraud is an intentional tort. Like negligence, courts in Colorado
Springs, Colorado deal with it quite often. Put simply, fraud is a lie told for personal gain. It
requires an affirmative misrepresentation, which the speaker knows to be false, intended to
induce the victim to render some benefit to the speaker, which causes actual harm (such as
financial loss) to the victim. Itoccurs most frequently when somebody is trying to sell
something for more than it's worth, and lies about the nature or value of the product to the
buyer. If the buyer relies on the seller's false statements of fact in making the decision to
buy the product, the seller has committed fraud. In such a situation, the buyer is legally
entitled to compensation for the harm suffered as a result of the fraud.
Battery: Battery is defined by the law of Colorado Springs, Colorado as any contact by one
person, with the body of another, which is offensive or harmful. Any conduct that causes
physical injury, pain, or emotional distress is battery. Also, you do not need to directly touch
a person with your own body to commit battery - simply directing harmful contact (say, by
throwing a rock) toward another person is sufficient to create liability for battery. Battery can
also arise from "offensive" contact, which is typicallyany physical contact that violates one's
sense of personal dignity constitutes battery, and the victim could technically sue over
it. Nonetheless, in most cases like that, the plaintiff hasn't sustained any real harm, and will
only be able to recover nominal damages, which would be far, far less than the cost of filing
a lawsuit.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Intentional infliction of emotional distress is also
called IIED in Colorado Springs, Colorado, and it was not identified as a valid cause of action
until fairly recently (for the longest time, physical harm was a requirement before someone
could sue for tort damages). To hold a defendant liable for IIED, it must be shown that the
defendant engaged in some type of outrageous conduct, targeted at the plaintiff. Moreover,
it must be shown that this conduct directly caused severe emotional distress in the plaintiff,
and that that was the defendant's intent. Establishing that actual emotional distress
occurred is the most difficult element of this tort, and the plaintiff's word is far from
sufficient. It often requires intensive examination by a psychiatrist, who will then testify as to
the plaintiff's mental state.
What
is
the
Economic
Loss
Rule?
The Economic Loss Rule is a judicially created doctrine that represents courts efforts to maintain
clear boundaries between tort and contract law. Tort law is intended to protect individuals from
physical harm to their persons or property3. Contract law is intended to enforce parties expectancy
interests created by the parties promises so that they can allocate risks and costs during their
bargaining4. The lines between tort law and contract are blurred in some circumstances because the
defendants actions can appear to be either tortious conduct or breach of a contract or both, and the
plaintiffs damages are reasonably foreseeable regardless of how the conduct is characterized.
Thus, courts have developed the Economic Loss Rule to ensure that where parties have allocated
risk and cost amongst themselves by contract, the claimant is limited to pursuing contract damages,
and may not also seek tort damages5.
In 2000, the Colorado Supreme Court decided two cases, Town of Alma v. AZCO Construction,
Inc.6, and Grynberg v. Agri Tech, Inc. 7, wherein the Court adopted the Economic Loss Rule.
According to the Supreme Courts definition of the rule:
[A] party suffering only economic loss from the breach of an express or implied contractual duty may
not assert a tort claim for such a breach absent an independent duty of care under tort law.8
As adopted by the court, the Economic Loss Rule states that, where a legal duty arises out of a
contractimplied or express, written or orala party cannot seek recovery of purely economic
losses in tort, unless there exists an independent duty of care outside of the contract and which is
distinct from any duties of care imposed by the contract.9
The Economic Loss Rule implicates some of the following types of economic harm that are
sometimes recoverable through tort claims:
diminution in value;
lost profits;
cost of repair/replacement; and
'damage[s] other than physical harm to persons or property.10
The Colorado Supreme Court has said the term Economic Loss Rule is probably a misnomer; the
rule should more accurately be called the Independent Duty Rule as the focus of the courts
analysis is not on the specific type of damages, but the source of the duty allegedly breached that
caused the damages11. In other words, the important question is not whether the harm for which
damages sought is an economic harm or an injury to person or property, but whether the duty
allegedly breached is an independent duty of care imposed by law for public policy reasons (a tort
duty), or a duty arising from mutual promises (a contract duty). If the duty breached is one that arises
from the contract, regardless of whether it is also a duty of care imposed by law, then the aggrieved
party may not pursue a tort claim but must seek recovery through contract claims as, presumably,
the parties had an opportunity to allocate the risks and costs of a breach as part of the bargaining
process before entering into the contract and priced their contract accordingly. On the other hand, if
the duty breached was a duty of care that arises independent of and is different from the duties
imposed by contract, then the plaintiff may pursue the claim as a tort claim.
Deadlines for Colorado Injury Lawsuits

Colorado has its own deadlines for filing an injury-related case in court. In
Colorado, you have two years to file a lawsuit after an injury. If you dont file
your case within two years, you may be barred from bringing it to court at all.
This deadline is known as a statute of limitations, since it's based on a state
law or "statute."
In most injury cases, this two-year time limit starts running on the date of the
accident or whatever caused your injury. In a few cases, however, the injured
person may not be able to tell right away that harm was actually suffered. In
these cases, the two-year time limit may run from the discovery date of the
injury, instead of the accident date.
Time Limits to File a Claim Against a City, County, or Colorado State

Government
One hundred eighty days to file a formal claim. Two years to file a lawsuit.
Colorados Comparative Fault Rules

In many injury cases, an injured person may seek compensation, only to have
the individual or company responsible turn around and blame the injured
person for the accident (alleging partial or total fault). Colorado has
a comparative fault rule that applies when an injured person is does in fact
share some amount of legal fault for an accident.
Colorado uses a modified comparative fault rule, which works like this:
suppose that you are shopping in a grocery store one day. Youre not watching
where youre going, so you trip on a broken floor tile before you notice its
there. Eventually, it is determined that your percentage of the fault is 10
percent, and the stores is 90 percent.
In this situation, Colorados modified comparative fault rule reduces your
damages award by 10 percent. So, if your total damages are $1,000 for
the slip and fall accident, you would receive $900, or $1,000 minus $100 that
represents the 10 percent of fault assigned to you. As long as your fault is
under 50 percent, you can collect a reduced damages amount; if your fault is
calculated at 50 percent or more, however, you will be barred from collecting
anything from any other at-fault party.
Colorado courts are required to apply Colorados modified comparative fault
rule in negligence cases. Dont be surprised, however, if an insurance adjuster
also mentions the possibility of shared fault during settlement negotiations.
Colorado Car Insurance Laws

Since 2003, Colorado has been a fault insurance state. If youre injured in a
car accident in Colorado, you have several options if you want to seek
compensation. These include filing a claim with an insurance company and/or
filing a lawsuit in court. Colorados insurance and injury laws have some builtin flexibility that you can use while negotiating for an insurance settlement.
"Strict" Liability for Dog Bite/Attack Cases

In many states, dog owners are protected (to some degree) from injury liability
the firsttime their dog injures someone if they had no reason to believe the dog
was dangerous. This is often called a "one bite" rule. In Colorado however, a
specific statute (Colo. Rev. Stat. 13-21-124) makes the owner "strictly liable",
meaning regardless of the animal's past behavior, the dog owner is
responsible for a personal injury caused by his/her dog.
Damage Caps in Colorado Injury Cases

Damage caps in injury cases serve to limit the amount of compensation that
an injured person can receive. A few states use damage caps to limit noneconomic damages, which includes compensation for pain and suffering and
other difficult-to-quantify negative effects of an injury. By law, Colorado caps
non-economic damages in injury cases at $250,000, or $500,000 if there is
clear and convincing evidence that justifies an increase. This law was
passed in 1986, and it allows adjustments for inflation. So, taking inflation into
account, as of 2014, the base non-economic damages cap was close to
$540,000, and the "clear and convincing evidence" level was around
$1,080,000. You'll find this law at Colorado Statutes section 13-21-102.5.
Note: For medical malpractice injuries in Colorado, there is a $300,000 cap on
non-economic damages (plus an overall cap of $1 million for total damages in
a medical malpractice case).
Connecticut (Hartford)
One of the original 13 colonies and one of the six New England states,
Connecticut is located in the northeastern corner of the country. Initially an
agricultural community, by the mid-19th century textile and machine
manufacturing had become the dominant industries. The home of Eli Whitney
and Samuel Colt, Connecticut was a leading manufacturer of guns and other
arms. Today Connecticut lies in the midst of the great urban-industrial complex
along the Atlantic coast, bordering Massachusetts to the north, Rhode Island
to the east, Long Island Sound to the south and New York to the west.
Hartford, in the north-central part of the state, is the capital. The state is
roughly rectangular in shape, with a panhandle extending to the southwest on
the New York border. In area it is the third smallest U.S. state, but it ranks
among the most densely populated. The states greatest east-west length is
about 110 miles, and its maximum north-south extent is about 70 miles.
Connecticut takes its name from an Algonquian word meaning land on the
long tidal river. Nutmeg State, Constitution State and Land of Steady
Habits are all nicknames that have been applied to Connecticut.
Time Limits on Connecticut Injury Lawsuits

In every state, for all types of cases that can be heard in the civil court, a law
called the statute of limitations governs how much time you have to get your
lawsuit filed. In Connecticut, you must get a personal injury lawsuit filed
within two years of the date on which you suffered the injury. This deadline is
critical to your rights because if you don't get your lawsuit started in court
before Connecticut's two-year filing window closes, you'll lose your right to
have your case heard.
Time Limit For Claims Against a Government Entity

A city or county must be notified of your intent to sue within six months. The
State Claims Commissioner must be notified of a claim against the state
within one year. See: Injury Claims Against The Government
Comparative Fault in Connecticut

Its not unusual to file an insurance claim or court case seeking compensation
for your injuries, only to have the person or company youve filed against claim
that you were partly or totally responsible for the accident that injured you.
Connecticut uses a comparative fault rule that reduces or eliminates
damages in cases where the injured person is found to share some level of
blame.
Heres an example of Connecticuts modified comparative fault rule in action.
Suppose youre driving a few miles per hour over the posted speed limit when
you pass through an intersection. Another driver runs a red light at the
intersection and hits your car. Eventually, its determined that you were 10
percent at fault, and the other driver was 90 percent at fault.
Under Connecticuts modified comparative fault rule, the 10 percent of fault
assigned to you means your total damages will be reduced by 10 percent. If
your damages in the example above were $10,000, this means you would
walk away with $9,000, or the $10,000 total minus $1,000. If your portion of
the damages were 50 percent or more, however, your damages award would
be eliminated entirely, and you will not be allowed to collect from any at-fault
party.
Connecticut courts are required to apply the comparative fault rule in injury
lawsuits that make it through trial. Insurance adjusters may also choose to
bring up the issue of comparative fault during settlement negotiations, so it's
best to be prepared.
Connecticut Car Insurance Laws

When it comes to car insurance, Connecticut is a fault state. This means that
people who are injured in Connecticut car accidents have several options if
they want to pursue compensation -- file an insurance claim under their own
auto insurance coverage, pursue a claim through the other driver's insurance
carrier, or file a personal injury lawsuit in civil court.

was dangerous. This is often called a "one bite" rule. In Connecticut however,
a specific statute (Conn. Gen. Stat. 22-357) makes the owner "strictly liable",
meaning regardless of the animal's past behavior, the dog owner is
responsible for a personal injury caused by his/her dog. Specifically, the
statute reads:
If any dog does any damage to either the body or property of any
person, [the dog owner] shall be liable for such damage, except when such
damage has been occasioned to the body or property of a person who, at the
time such damage was sustained, was committing a trespass or other tort, or
was teasing, tormenting or abusing such dog.
Connecticut Damage Caps in Injury Cases

Damages in personal injury law are sometimes capped, or limited, by state
law. Each state has its own rules about what types of injury cases -- or what
types of harm -- are subject to caps.
Connecticut does not currently have damage caps in any types of injury
cases, whether for economic or non-economic (also known as pain and
suffering) damages. Connecticut also allows punitive damages in medical
malpractice injury cases, although these amounts are limited to the actual
costs of the case and the attorneys fees.
Delaware (Dover)
The first of the original 13 states to ratify the federal Constitution, Delaware
occupies a small niche in the BostonWashington, D.C., urban corridor along
the Middle Atlantic seaboard. It is the second smallest state in the country and
one of the most densely populated. The state is organized into three counties
from north to south, New Castle, Kent and Sussexall established by 1682.
Its population, like its industry, is concentrated in the north, around
Wilmington, where the major coastal highways and railways pass through from
Pennsylvania and New Jersey on the north and east into Maryland on the
south and west. The rest of the state comprises the northeastern corner of the
Delmarva Peninsula, which Delaware shares with Maryland and Virginia
(hence its name). Most state government operations are located in Dover, the
capital.
4001 Limitation on civil liability.
Except as otherwise provided by the Constitutions or laws of the United States or of the State
of Delaware, as the same may expressly require or be interpreted as requiring by a court of
competent jurisdiction, no claim or cause of action shall arise, and no judgment, damages,
penalties, costs or other money entitlement shall be awarded or assessed against the State
or any public officer or employee, including the members of any board, commission,
conservation district or agency of the State, whether elected or appointed, and whether now
or previously serving as such, in any civil suit or proceeding at law or in equity, or before any
administrative tribunal, where the following elements are present:
(1)The act or omission complained of arose out of and in connection with the
performance of an official duty requiring a determination of policy, the interpretation or
enforcement of statutes, rules or regulations, the granting or withholding of publicly
created or regulated entitlement or privilege or any other official duty involving the
exercise of discretion on the part of the public officer, employee or member, or anyone
over whom the public officer, employee or member shall have supervisory authority;
(2)The act or omission complained of was done in good faith and in the belief that the
public interest would best be served thereby; and
(3)The act or omission complained of was done without gross or wanton negligence;
provided that the immunity of judges, the Attorney General and Deputy Attorneys General,
and members of the General Assembly shall, as to all civil claims or causes of action
founded upon an act or omission arising out of the performance of an official duty, be
absolute; provided further that in any civil action or proceeding against the State or a public
officer, employee or member of the State, the plaintiff shall have the burden of proving the
absence of 1 or more of the elements of immunity as set forth in this section.
61 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1; 66 Del. Laws, c. 348, 1.;

4002 Indemnification of public officers and employees.
In addition to the right of representation provided for in 3925 of this title, any public officer,
employee or member who, but for the application of any provision of the Constitutions or laws
of the United States or the State of Delaware to the contrary, would be entitled to immunity in
accordance with 4001 of this title, shall be indemnified by the State against any expenses
(including attorney's fees and disbursements), judgments, fines and costs, actually and
reasonably incurred by such public officer, employee or member in defending against the
action, suit or proceeding giving rise thereto.
61 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1.;
4003 Political subdivisions; limitations on liability.
Any political subdivision of the State, including the various school districts, and their officers
and employees shall be entitled to the same privileges and immunities as provided in this
chapter for the State and its officers and employees; provided that the public officers and
employees of any such political subdivision shall only be indemnified if the governing body of
the subdivision shall expressly so provide, and then only to the extent that the subdivision
shall appropriate all funds necessary therefor.
61 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1.;
4004 Procedure for establishing right to indemnification.
The right to indemnification provided for in 4002 of this title shall automatically obtain upon
the final determination of any court or administrative tribunal of competent jurisdiction that no
claim or cause of action existed, or, but for the application of the Constitutions or laws of
either the United States or the State of Delaware, that no such claim or cause of action would
have existed, or upon a verdict or ruling in favor of the public officer, employee or member. If
a court or administrative tribunal shall determine that no right to indemnification exists
because of the absence of 1 or more of the elements of immunity set forth in 4001 of this
title, said determination shall be final and binding at such time as any and all rights of appeal
from the decision giving rise to such determination shall have been exhausted. If, for
whatever reason, including a settlement agreed upon by the parties, the court or
administrative tribunal having jurisdiction shall fail or refuse to make the determination
required by this section, then the indemnification shall only be granted as to public officers,
employees or members of the State upon the affirmative recommendation of the appropriate
department head, or a majority of the members of the governing body of the board,
commission or agency, whichever shall apply, and the concurrence of the Governor and the
Attorney General or their designees. Any political subdivision of the State which shall
hereafter provide indemnification as authorized by this chapter shall establish its own
procedure for determining eligibility for its officers and employees in the absence of the
determination of a court of competent jurisdiction.
61 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1.;
4005 Authorization to purchase liability insurance.
The State or any of its departments, agencies, boards, commissions or political subdivisions
are hereby authorized to obtain from funds appropriated for such purpose a policy or policies
of insurance sufficient to provide coverage for its public officers, employees or members
which is coextensive with the standards for indemnification as provided for in this chapter. No
public officer, employee or member shall be entitled to indemnification under this section for
any act or omission, not otherwise protected herein, any applicable policy of insurance to the
contrary notwithstanding.
61 Del. Laws, c. 431, 1.;
What Is the Process for a Motor Tort Case in Delaware?
The first step in this process is determining liability. Because even doing that can be complicated, it's
important to get an experienced attorney involved as soon as possible. From there, the resolution of a
case usually comes in the form of settling with an insurance company. In the event that ends up not
being a feasible option, the case can be taken to court and argued by an experienced lawyer in front of
a jury.
1. Delaware does not employ a limited tort/verbal threshold limitation.

Tort limitations or tort thresholds severely limit an innocent injured car accident victims right to obtain
financial compensation for pain and suffering damages. In general, these tort limitations impose a
pre-requisite to obtaining pain and suffering damages. For example, there must be a permanent
serious injury, or the injury must fall under other statutory exceptions, in order for an injured
individual to obtain pain and suffering damages.
Unlike neighboring states, Pennsylvania and New Jersey which employ tort thresholds, Delaware
employs no tort limitation in car accident cases which occur in this state. In addition, Delaware courts
are likely to apply Delaware law with respect to application of tort thresholds when dealing with an
out-of-state driver who is injured in an auto accident in this state. For instance, a NJ driver with
verbal threshold who is injured in a car accident in Delawarewill probably be able to make a claim for
pain and suffering damages, notwithstanding the home state tort election. Delaware courts will
engage in a choice of law or conflicts of law analysis and will probably find that so long as the
accident occurred in Delaware and involved a Delaware tortfeasor, Delaware law applies.
2. Delaware retains full joint and several liability principles.
In the last few years, more states have begun to restrict applicability of joint and several liability. For
instance, Pennsylvanias legislature recently limited the application of joint and several liability in
most tort claims. Now, in most multiple defendant tort cases in PA, liability is apportioned. Not so in
Delaware. Under Delaware law, when the negligent acts of two or more defendants concur in
producing a single, indivisible injury, the defendants are jointly and severally liable. The plaintiff may
therefore seek recovery from either or both defendants. Plaintiff may choose either defendant to be
held individually liable for the entire amount of the judgment/damages.
3. Delaware courts apply the traditional collateral source rule.
Under Delaware tort law, injured plaintiffs, whose medical bills are paid pursuant to out-of-state car
insurance policies, are generally able to plead and prove all damages; this is Delawares collateral
source rule in full effect. Delaware courts have consistently recognized that the collateral source rule
is firmly embedded in Delaware jurisprudence. Double recovery is acceptable so long as the source
of such payment is unconnected to the original tortfeasor.
In a typical Delaware car accident lawsuit, a Delaware plaintiff who has medical bills in excess of PIP
can plead and prove the full value of those medical bills, even if they were paid by plaintiffs private
health insurance carrier.
Delaware Trial Handbook 22:5. MEASURE OF DAMAGES:

TORT ACTIONS
As a general rule, a tortfeasor is liable for damages for all the natural, direct and
proximate consequences of his or her wrongful acts or omissions and for all the
foreseeable consequences of such wrongful acts or omissions.31 The damages
recoverable for tortious conduct must include an amount that will put the
plaintiff in the same financial position as he or she was before the injury.32
Beyond economic recovery, a plaintiff is entitled to full compensation for
whatever injury he or she has sustained as a result of the tortuous conduct.
Where tortious activity results in injury to property, the measure of damages
generally is the difference in value of the property immediately before and
immediately after the injury. This measure applies to real property33 as well as
personal property.34 Where other values are implicated which justify repair or
restoration of the property, the measure of damages may be the cost of
repair.35 If the loss In value cannot be remedied by repairs, the measure of
damages in an appropriate case is the value of the property just before the
injury less its salvage value immediately after the injury.36 An owner may testify
as to the value of the property before the accident on the theory that being
familiar with the property, the owner is presumed to know its worth in a general
way.37 Expert testimony, however, is necessary on the issue of the damaged
value of the property.38
Where personal property has no easily ascertainable market value, such as used
clothing and similar personal effects, one possible measure of damages is the
replacement value of like merchandise that had been in use for the same length
of time and in the same condition.39
When injury to property results in a period of non-use, depreciation of the

property and loss of any profits that would have been gained by use of the
property for the period of non-use are proper elements of damages.40
Except as to measures of damages that are restricted for specific types of
actions by statute, the principles discussed above govern all tort actions not
involving physical injury. For specific types of actions, listed below, the courts
have developed specific measures of damages which are applications of these
general principles. However, these rules of thumb should not prevent proof of
additional damages in specific situations where the ordinary measure of
damages will not provide adequate compensation.
Florida (Tallahassee)
Florida, which joined the union as the 27th state in 1845, is nicknamed the
Sunshine State and known for its balmy climate and natural beauty. Spanish
explorer Juan Ponce de Leon, who led the first European expedition to Florida
in 1513, named the state in tribute to Spains Easter celebration known as
Pascua Florida, or Feast of Flowers. During the first half of the 1800s, U.S.
troops waged war with the regions Native American population. During the
Civil War, Florida was the third state to secede from the Union. Beginning in
the late 19th century, residents of Northern states flocked to Florida to escape
harsh winters. In the 20th century, tourism became Floridas leading industry
and remains so today, attracting millions of visitors annually. Florida is also
known for its oranges and grapefruit, and some 80 percent of Americas citrus
is grown there.
Intentional Torts
An intentional tort is a civil wrong resulting from an intentional act of the defendant. Put
another way, an intentional tort is an action done on purpose against a person or
persons property. The definition covers a wide range of actions. One example of an
intentional tort would be a punch to the face. In that example, the actor intended to
cause harm by slamming his or her closed fist into the victims face.
In order for a plaintiff to establish liability for an intentional tort, he or she must
demonstrate the following elements: i) an act by the defendant this refers to a
volitional act by the defendant; ii) intent this requires the actors goal be to bring about
the result of his or her action, or the actor knows with substantial certainty that his or her
action would bring about certain consequences; and iii) causation the action must
have been a direct cause of the injury, or have been a substantial factor.
Negligent Acts
Negligence is the failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary
prudence would have used under the same or similar circumstances. Negligent conduct
may consist of either an act, or an omission to act when there is a duty to do so. The
main factor to consider in determining whether a persons conduct lacks reasonable
care is the foreseeable likelihood that the persons behavior would result in harm. For
example, if a driver speeds excessively and causes an accident, he or she will be liable
for any resulting harm because it is foreseeable to a reasonable person that speeding
can cause an accident and harm.
In order for a plaintiff to establish liability for negligence, he or she must demonstrate the
following elements: i) defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care; ii) defendant breached the
duty of care; iii) the defendants actions must have been the cause of the plaintiffs
injury, and iii) the plaintiff suffered damages as a direct result of the defendants breach.
Florida Tort Reform
As of June 1999, sweeping changes were signed into law which will have an effect on almost every
civil cause of action filed in the State of Florida. All civil causes of action accruing after October,
1999, particularly tort actions, are now subject to changes made in the name of "tort reform." A "tort,"
which is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as a civil wrong or injury committed upon a person,
encompasses everything from general slip-and-fall actions to complex products liability cases. As
such, the significant changes made to the statutes governing these types of cases will affect, either
directly or indirectly, all members of society, not just lawyers.
Employer Liability: Significant changes were also made to the statutes related to an employer's
liability for tortious actions of its employees, as well as an employer's liability for its own actions.
In the past, an employer could be liable for punitive damages if it could be shown that there was
some fault on the part of the employer independent of an employee's tortious conduct. Now, under
Florida Statute Section 768.72, an employer is only liable for its employee's conduct if the employer
either "actively and knowingly participated" in the conduct, "knowingly condoned, ratified, or
consented" to the conduct, or "engaged in conduct that constituted gross negligence."
These statutory changes also insulate an employer from liability for negligent hiring in a civil action
for death, injury or damage to a third person caused by the intentional tort of an employee. Florida
Statute Section 768.096 now provides that an "employer is presumed not to have been negligent in
hiring an employee if, before hiring the employee, the employer conducted a background
investigation of the prospective employee and the investigation did not reveal any information that
reasonably demonstrated the unsuitability of the prospective employee for the particular work to be
performed, or of the employment in general." Such investigation must include a criminal background
investigation, a reasonable effort to contact references and former employers, completion of a job
application that includes particular questions related to crimes and past intentional tort claims,
driving record check if related to work to be performed, and an interview with the prospective
employee. However, if an employer chooses not to conduct an investigation as enumerated by the
statute, no presumption is raised that the employer has failed to use reasonable care in hiring an
employee.
Employers are now also immune from liability for disclosure of information regarding former or
current employees to prospective employers. Florida Statute Section 768.095 provides immunity
unless it can be shown that the employer made knowingly false statements or violated certain
protected civil rights.
Punitive Damages: One of the most intensely debated areas of tort reform relates to the issue of
punitive damages. Punitive damages are damages which are assessed as punishment and as a
deterrent for similar future conduct, not damages which compensate an individual.
Recently, Florida juries have awarded multi-million dollar punitive damages awards in various cases.
Changes to the statutes governing civil causes of action will now cap the amount of punitive
damages awardable in all but a few cases. Generally, punitive damages will now be capped at the
greater of three times the actual damages or $500,000. However, if the conduct can be shown to
have been "motivated solely by unreasonable financial gain," the punitive damages cap is increased
to the greater of four times the actual damages or $2 million. The court may only remove this cap on
punitive damages when it can be shown that there was a specific intent on the part of the defendant
to cause harm.
In addition to a cap on punitive damages, there are now stricter standards of proof governing
entitlement and pleading of punitive damages claims. However, Florida Statute Section 768.735
makes these stricter standards of proof inapplicable to causes of action which are based upon
certain abuses such as child abuse and abuse of the elderly, and cases in which the defendant was,
at the time of the incident, under the influence of "any alcoholic beverage or drug" to the extent that
their normal faculties were impaired or when the individual had a blood alcohol level of 0.08 percent
or higher.
Products Liability: One of the most significant changes made in the area of products liability actions
involves the imposition of a "statute of repose" or a limitation of time during which a cause of action
can arise. Previously, manufacturers and retailers of products had almost unlimited exposure for
alleged defective products, even if the product was well past its useful life. Now, Florida Statute
Section 95.031 requires that an action related to an alleged defective product must be commenced
within 12 years of the product's specified expected useful life. Under this statute, most products are
conclusively presumed to have an expected useful life of 10 years or less.
Certain products including aircraft, railroad equipment, elevators and escalators are not subject to
this statute of repose. Also, the statute of repose is tolled for any periods during which a
manufacturer has actual knowledge of a product's defect as alleged by the claimant, yet takes
affirmative steps to conceal the defect.
The items detailed in this article are but a fraction of the changes made to Florida statutory law
governing civil litigation. It is only with the application of these changes to actual cases that the
magnitude of these reform measures will be accurately assessed.
Deadlines for Filing an Injury Lawsuit in Florida

Like every other state, Florida has a statute on the books that sets a deadline
for the amount of time you have to file a lawsuit in civil court against the
person or business that might be legally at fault for your injury. This law is
called a statute of limitations.
Under Florida's statute of limitations for personal injury cases, you have four
years from the date of the accident to file a lawsuit in Florida's civil courts (this
law can be found in Florida Statutes Annotated section 95.11). If you don't file
your case within this time window, the court will very likely refuse to hear it at
all. In rare cases, you may not discover that you actually suffered harm for
some amount of time after the incident that caused the injury, and in those
instances the lawsuit-filing window will be extended.
For injury claims against a city, county or state government, the time limit
is three years. See: Injury Claims Against The Government
Florida's Comparative Negligence Law

In some cases, the person you are seeking to hold liable for your injuries may
turn around and say that you're actually to blame (at least in part) -- for
causing the accident that led to your injuries and/or for making your own
injuries worse. If you do share some amount of fault for your injuries, it can
affect the amount of compensation you can receive from other at-fault people
or businesses.
Florida follows a pure comparative negligence rule in cases like these. Under
this rule, the amount of compensation you're entitled to receive will be reduced
by an amount that is equal to your percentage of fault for the accident.
So, if you're in a car accident where the other driver ran a red light, but you
were driving a few miles an hour above the posted speed limit, you might
share 10 percent of the blame for the accident, while the other driver is 90
percent to blame. Let's say your damages add up to $5,000. Under Florida's
comparative negligence rule, your compensation will be reduced to $4,500 (or
the $5,000 total minus $500 which accounts for your share of fault.)
Courts in Florida are obligated to follow this rule in an injury case, and if you're
dealing with an insurance adjuster outside the court system, don't be
surprised if he or she raises the comparative negligence rule during settlement
talks.
Florida No-Fault Car Insurance Laws

In car accident cases only, Florida follows a no-fault system, which means that
after most traffic accidents, an injured person's own insurance company will
provide coverage for medical expenses and lost income, no matter who was at
fault for the accident.
You can't hold the other driver liable after a car accident in Florida, unless the
serious injury threshold is met. So most minor accidents will fall under the
no-fault umbrella. But you may be able to step outside of the no-fault system
and file a liability claim against an at-fault driver in Florida if, as a result of the
accident, you suffered:
permanent injury
significant and permanent scarring, or
disfigurement.
Obviously, these terms are a little vague, so it will be up for negotiation as part
of your claim whether certain injuries meet the serious injury threshold of
Florida's no-fault rules.
See No-Fault Car Accident Laws for more on how these cases work.

was dangerous. This is often called a "one bite" rule. In Florida however, two
statutes (Fla. Stat. Ann. 767.01 and, Fla. Stat. Ann. 767.04) make the
owner "strictly liable", meaning regardless of the animal's past behavior, the
dog owner is responsible for a personal injury caused by his/her dog.
Specifically, the statute reads:
Owners of dogs shall be liable for any damage done by their dogs to a
person. - Fla. Stat. Ann. 767.01
The [dog] owner is liable for damages suffered by persons bitten,
regardless of the former viciousness of the dog or the owners knowledge of
such viciousness. - Fla. Stat. Ann. 767.04
Damage Caps in Florida Injury Cases

Damage cap statutes set a limit on the amount of money that an injured
person can receive in certain kinds of cases, or for certain types of losses.
Most often, these laws limit the amount of non-economic damages (i.e. "pain
and suffering") that an injured person can recover.
In terms of common personal injury cases like car accidents, slip and fall
injuries, and product defect claims, the most important Florida law on damage
caps pertains to punitive damages. It's important to note that punitive
damages are only available in a small percentage of injury cases. They're
meant to punish the wrongdoer for particularly dangerous or reprehensible
behavior.
For most injury cases, Florida limits punitive damages to three times the
amount of compensatory damages or $500,000 whichever is greater. This law
can be found in Florida Statutes Title XLV section 768.73.
There are no other damage cap laws on the books in Florida when it comes
to standard personal injury cases. But it's a different story in medical
malpractice cases. Florida law does impose caps on damages in lawsuits
against medical practitioners, including strict limits on non-economic damages
like pain and suffering. Those laws are a little too complex to get into here.
Liability
Joint and Several
Economic Damages
Abolished
The court shall enter judgment against each party liable

on the basis of such party's percentage of fault and not on
the basis of the doctrine of joint and several liability.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 768.81(3).
Abolished
See above.

Among All Persons
Yes
Fabre v. Marin, 623 So. 2d 1182 (Fla. 1993), receded from in part on
the other grounds in Wells v. Tallahassee Mem. Reg. Med. Center,
Inc., 659 So. 2d 249 (Fla. 1995); see also Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Fox,
623 So. 2d 1180 (Fla. 1993) (nonparty employers comparative fault
must be considered by jury in negligence suit by employee against
equipment manufacturer).
Yes
The Supreme Court of Florida adopted a hybrid market

share theory of liability that was initially formulated by
the Supreme Court of Washington. This theory is limited
to negligence actions and is not available in fraud, breach
of warranty, or strict liability claims.
Conley v. Boyle Drug Co., 570 So. 2d 275 (Fla. 1990).
Defenses
Yes, pure
comparative
negligence
Hoffman v. Jones, 280 So. 2d 431 (Fla. 1973); Fla. Stat.

Ann. 768.81(2).
Assumption of Risk
No
Assumption of risk was subsumed into comparative negligence.

Blackburn v. Dorta, 348 So. 2d 287 (Fla. 1977).
Product Misuse
In some
cases
Strict liability only applies if the product is used for the purpose for
which it was intended when produced.
High v. Westinghouse Elec. Corp., 610 So. 2d 1259 (Fla. 1992).
Product misuse is not a complete defense in negligence cases, but
reduce a recovery in accordance with comparative fault.
Standard Havens Prods. v. Benitez, 648 So. 2d 1192 (Fla. 1994).
Compliance With
Yes,
rebuttable
presumption
Florida law provides a rebuttable presumption that a product is not

defective if it complied with government standards, but compliance
with standards is not an absolute defense.
Florida law also provides a rebuttable presumption that a product is
defective if the product failed to comply with government standards
in some circumstances.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 768.1256.
Statute of Repose
Yes
12-year statute of repose for products with a useful life of

10 years or less, unless the product is specifically
warranted to have a useful life longer than 12 years.
20-year statute of repose for airplanes or vessels in
commercial activity, unless the manufacturer specifically
warranted a useful life longer than 20 years.
The law does not apply to cases involving improvements
to real property including elevators and escalators, cases
involving a latent injury, or cases where the manufacturer,
acting though its officers, directors or managing agents,
took affirmative steps to conceal a known defect in the
product.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 95.031(b).
Defense
No, except
in some
military
contract
cases.
A contractor may escape liability only if it affirmatively proves:

(1) that it did not participate, or participated only minimally, in the
design of those products or parts of products shown to be defective;
or (2) that it timely warned the military of the risks of the design and
notified it of alternative designs reasonably known by the contractor,
and that the military, although forewarned, clearly authorized the
contractor to proceed with the dangerous design.
Dorse v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 513 So. 2d 1265 (Fla. 1987).
McLawsuits Permitted? Can a

food manufacturer, distributor,
seller, or retailer be sued based on
an individual's weight gain,
obesity, or obesity-related health
No
condition?
economic damages?
Generally,
no limit.
In medical malpractice actions, there are no damage caps, if neither

party requests arbitration or the defendant refuses to arbitrate.
If the parties arbitrate, noneconomic damages may not exceed
$250,000 per incident, and are calculated on a percentage basis with
respect to capacity to enjoy life, so that a finding that the claimant's
injuries resulted in a 50% reduction in his or her capacity to enjoy life
would warrant an award of not more than $125,000 in noneconomic
damages.
If the plaintiff refuses to arbitrate, damages awardable at trial are
limited to economic damages, plus noneconomic damages of no more
than $350,000 per incident.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 766.207, 766.209.

Limited in
medical
liability
cases only.
In medical liability cases involving practitioner

negligence, noneconomic damages are limited to
$500,000 per claimant.
Noneconomic damages by all claimants may not exceed
$1 million in an action against physician defendants.
In nonphysician cases, noneconomic damages are limited to $750,000
per claimant, and the aggregate noneconomic damages recoverable
by all claimants in a case may not exceed $1.5 million.
In cases of permanent vegetative state, death, or other

severe injury, the total recoverable noneconomic damages
against physicians may not exceed $1 million.
In cases of emergency care, noneconomic damages for
practitioner negligence may not exceed $150,000 per
claimant and the total recoverable by all claimants from
all practitioners is capped at $300,000.
Non-practitioner and facility negligence awards may not
exceed $750,000 per claimant or $1.5 million against all
defendants.
In Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So. 2d 1080 (Fla. 1987), the
Florida Supreme Court ruled that a statute imposing a $450,000 cap
on noneconomic damages recoverable in actions for personal injury
violated the open courts provision of the Florida Constitution.

monitoring permitted
without physical injury?
Punitive Damages
Yes (through
a cause of
action)
In Petito v. A.H. Robins Co. Inc., 750 So. 2d 103 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App.
1999), a Florida appellate court ruled that individuals may bring an
action for medical monitoring even in absence of a present, physical
injury.
Yes
Punitive damages are limited to the greater of three times

compensatory damages or $500,000.
If the trier of fact finds the defendants conduct was motivated solely
by unreasonable financial gain and the unreasonably dangerous
nature of the conduct was known by the person responsible for
making policy decisions on the defendant's behalf, the fact finder
may award punitive damages may be awarded up to the greater of
four times compensatory damages or $2 million.
No cap applies if the defendant had a specific intent to

harm the claimant.
Punitive damages may not be awarded in any civil action

alleging an asbestos or silica claim.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 774.207(1).

conduct?
Limited
Punitive damages may not be awarded if the defendant establishes,

before trial, that punitive damages have previously been awarded
against it for the action or course of conduct. If the court determines
by clear and convincing evidence that the punitive damages award
was insufficient, the court may permit the jury to consider a
subsequent award.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 768.73(2).

damage award?
No
A Florida law providing the state with a portion of

punitive damage awards sunset in 1995.
Clear and
convincing
evidence
Procedures
Venue
Conducive to Abuse Does the statute permit forum
shopping?
Not reported
Venue for actions against domestic corporation is "in the county

where such corporation has, or usually keeps, an office for transaction
of its customary business, where the cause of action accrued, or
where the property in litigation is located."
Actions against foreign corporations doing business Florida "shall be
brought in a county where such corporation has an agent or other
representative, where the cause of action accrued, or where the
property in litigation is located."
Class Actions
Are there limits on who
may bring a class action?
Yes
With any class action brought, the claimant having

capacity to sue must be or have been a resident of the
state at the time of the alleged misconduct.
Before issuing a class certification order, the court
hearing an action asserting the right to class action status
may expand a class to include any nonresident whose
claim is recognized within the claimant's state of
residence and is not time barred, but whose rights cannot
be asserted because claimant's state of residence lacks
personal jurisdiction over the defendant(s).
The claimant class may also include nonresidents if the
conduct giving rise to the claim occurred in or emanated
from Florida.
The class action claimants must allege and prove actual
damages.
certification?
Yes
Florida law permits interlocutory appeal of orders granting or

denying class certification.
Fla. R. App. P. 9.130(a)(6).
Appeal Bonds
Yes.
The bond must be equal to the principal amount of the

judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest on
judgments on the total amount on which the party has an
obligation to pay interest. Multiple parties having
common liability may file a single bond satisfying the
above criteria.
Fla. R. App. P. 9.310(b).
Is there any limit on

appeal bonds?
Yes
Bond for appeal of punitive damages award in a certified

class action may not exceed the amount of the punitive
damages judgment plus twice the statutory rate of interest
of 10% of the defendant's net worth. In no event,
however, shall the amount of the bond exceed $100
million.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 768.733(2).
Except for certified class actions subject to 768.733(see

above), in any civil action brought under any legal theory,
the amount of a supersedeas bond may not exceed $50
million for each appellant, regardless of the amount of the
judgment appealed. The amount is adjusted annually to
reflect changes in the consumer price index.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 45.045(1).
In any civil action against Master tobacco Settlement

Agreement signatories, successors, or affiliates, the total
bond required to appeal any compensatory and punitive
damages award may not exceed $100 million.

Evidence
Has the state
adopted Daubert,which requires
the judge to act as a
"gatekeeper" against unreliable
expert testimony in civil actions?
No
Floridas rule on testimony by experts reads as follows:

If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the
trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in
issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill,
experience, training, or education may testify about it in the form of
an opinion; however, the opinion is admissible only if it can be
applied to evidence at trial.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 90.702; Hildwin v. State, 951 So. 2d 784 (Fla.
2006). (reaffirming applicability of Frye general acceptance test).

Must each individual
plaintiff show that he or she
relied on the allegedly unfair
or deceptive practice at
issue?
Causation,
but not
actual
reliance
The unlawful act must cause actual damage. Actual

reliance is not required, but it must be shown that a
reasonable person would rely on the representation or that
it was likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.
See, e.g. Rollins, Inc. v. Butland, 951 So. 2d 860 (Dist.
Ct. App. 2006), review denied, 962 So. 2d 335 (Fla.
2007); Att'y Gen. v. Wyndham Int'l, Inc., 869 So. 2d 592,
598 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004).

defendant?
Not
addressed
Yes
No
Actual damages only.

provided for even if a
plaintiff cannot show an
actual economic injury?
Fla. Stat. Ann. 501.211(2).
Does the plaintiff

defendant?
No
Punitive damages are not available absent some

independent basis, such as fraud.

fees and costs?
Yes
Fla. Stat. Ann. 501.211(2).
Yes
This part does not apply to: (1) An act or practice

required or specifically permitted by federal or state law.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 501.211(2); Rollins, Inc. v. Heller, 454 So. 2d 580
(Dist. Ct. App. 1984), review denied, 461 So. 2d 114 (Fla. 1985).

Florida law also provides:
It is the intent of the Legislature that, in construing . . .
due consideration and great weight shall be given to the
interpretations of the Federal Trade Commission and the
federal courts relating to s. 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade
Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 45(a)(1) as of July 1,
2001.
Jury Service
No
The Governor, Lieutenant Governor, any Cabinet officer,

court clerks, and judges are disqualified from jury
service. Law enforcement officers, practicing attorneys,
and physicians are automatically exempt from jury duty.
Are the grounds for

obtaining an excuse from
service closely defined?
No
A court may grant an excuse upon a showing of

hardship, extreme inconvenience, or public necessity.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 40.013(6).
Expectant mothers, any parent who is not employed full time and has
custody of a child less than six years of age, persons over 70 years of
age, any person responsible for the care of other person with mental
or physical illness are automatically exempt from jury duty.

service?
Yes
If a Florida citizen receives a juror summons for an

inconvenient time, he or she may request a postponement
for a period not to exceed 6 months.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 40.23(2).

No
Florida prohibits an employer from dismissing or

threatening to dismiss an employee who is called for jury
service, but does not protect employees from other types
of adverse actions. Nor does it provide that an employer
may not require an employee to use annual, vacation, or
sick leave time for the period in which he or she serves on
a jury.
Fla. Stat. 40.271.

Yes
Individuals may be called to serve once each year.
Fla. Stat. Ann. 40.013(7).

day or one trial?
Yes
Juror per diem
Generally
$15
Jurors who are regularly employed and who continue to receive

regular wages while serving as a juror are not entitled to receive
compensation from the state for the first 3 days of jury service.
Jurors who are not employed or who do not receive their regular
wages during jury service receive $15 per day for the first 3 days of
jury service.
Yes, slight
increase
Jurors who serve for more than three days receive $30 per
day upon the fourth day of jury service and thereafter.

No
An individual who fails to respond to a summons is

subject to a fine of not more than $100 and may be held in
contempt of court.
South Florida, including
Miami-Dade, Palm Beach,
and Broward Counties.
Named as a Judicial Hellhole by the American Tort Reform

Association.

Torts

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Torts

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Alabama (Montgomery)

Matkin v. Smith, 643 So. 2d 949 (Ala. 1994).

May a Jury Allocate Fault

Springer v. Jefferson County, 595 So. 2d 1381 (Ala. 1992)

Market Share Liability

Contributory negligence is a defense.

The affirmative defense of assumption of the risk requires

Kelly v. M. Trigg Enter., Inc., 605 So. 2d 1185 (Ala.

Evidence of compliance with standards is admissible as to

A former provision of the Ala. Code, 6-5-502, was held

Yes, but unclear as

Compare Pietz v. Orthopedic Equip. Co., 562 So. 2d 152

McLawsuits Permitted? Can a

Alabama enacted a $400,000 limit on non-economic

removing from the jury the unbridled right to punish)

Is there a statutory limit on

Is recovery for medical

Hinton v. Monsanto, 813 So. 2d 827 (Ala. 2001) (refusing

In nonphysical injury cases against larger businesses:

Ala. Code 6-11-21.

Is there any restriction on

Does the state receive a

What standard is used?

Clear and convince

Ala. Code 6-11-20.

Civil actions against corporations may be brought in either

individual, where the plaintiff had its principal place of

A court's order certifying a class or refusing to certify a class

The required bond is twice the amount of the judgment in

In civil litigation under any legal theory involving a signatory,

Martin v. Dyas, 896 So. 2d 436 (Ala. 2004).

requires the judge to act as a

Private Lawsuits Under Consumer Protection Statutes

Ala. Code 8-19-10(a).

What is the level of scienter

Are class actions permitted?

Ala. Code 8-19-10(f).

Are statutory damages (an

Provides for award of the greater of actual damages or

Does the plaintiff

Up to three times any actual damage, in the court's

Does every prevailing

On a finding by the court that an action or counterclaim was

Ala. Code 8-19-10(a)(1).

Ala. Code 8-19-10(a)(3).

The Alabama statute does not specifically exempt acts or

Are the grounds for obtaining

"Undue or extreme physical or financial hardship" is limited

May jurors automatically

Jurors have the right to one automatic postponement with a

Is a juror's employment and

An employer may not discharge or take any adverse

Is there a limit on the

Individuals may not be required to serve more than once

Is the length of service

Juror per diem

Jurors are generally summoned to serve for one week.

Employers are required to compensate full-time employees

Is the potential penalty for

Fine of up to $300 and/or imprisonment no more than 10

Ala. Code 12-16-82.

Montgomery and Macon

Named as Judicial Hellholes by the American Tort Reform

AS 09.10.070. Actions For Torts, For Injury to Personal