Glomb v. Glomb
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
530 A.2d 1362 (1987)
- Written by Kate Luck, JD
Facts
John and Marie Glomb (defendants) hired Sherry Ginosky (defendant) to care for their one-year-old daughter, Tia Marie (plaintiff), after another babysitter unexpectedly quit. Within a few weeks, John and Marie noticed bruises on Tia Marie’s body. Ginosky gave improbable explanations for the bruises, and John warned Ginosky that additional bruises would result in Ginosky’s termination. Two days later, Tia Marie suffered serious injuries to her face and head requiring a two-week hospital stay and extensive rehabilitation. The parties agreed that Ginosky intentionally inflicted Tia Marie’s injuries. A guardian ad litem appointed for Tia Marie brought suit against John and Marie, and John and Marie joined Ginosky as a third-party defendant. The trial court directed the jury to find that Ginosky intentionally inflicted Tia Marie’s injuries and that John and Marie were entitled to indemnification from Ginosky. The court held all three defendants jointly and severally liable and did not allow the jury to apportion fault among John, Marie, and Ginosky. The jury awarded Tia Marie $1.5 million. John and Marie appealed, arguing that the court should have apportioned the liability for each defendant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Montemuro, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.
