Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc.
Tennessee Supreme Court
891 S.W.2d 905 (1994)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Michael Bervoets (plaintiff) was seriously injured in a car accident caused by Lee Jackson (defendant). Bervoets filed a negligence action against Jackson and his parents, among others. Jackson, who was underage, had been drinking at a restaurant operated by Adanac, Inc. (d/b/a Cactus Jack’s) (third-party defendant), so the Jacksons and their insurance company, Safeco, filed a third-party complaint against Adanac. Bervoets settled with the Jacksons and Safeco, releasing all claims against all defendants. Safeco then sought contribution under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) from Adanac. Two trials were held, but the verdicts were set aside and reversed. Before the third trial, the Tennessee Supreme Court decided McIntyre v. Balentine, abolishing joint and several liability and stating that comparative fault would apply to contribution actions tried or retried after the decision instead of pro rata shares under UCATA. Following McIntyre, Safeco filed an amended third-party complaint against Adanac seeking contribution and common-law indemnity. Adanac moved to dismiss the amended third-party complaint. The trial court dismissed the common-law indemnity claim but not the contribution claim. Adanac appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the contribution claim should be determined using pro rata shares instead of comparative fault. Adanac appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Drowota, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 796,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.