Abstract
The question of which damages distribution scheme to adopt amounts to a choice between the goals of fully compensating the plaintiff and proportionally assessing damages to the defendant. To remain consistent with Utah's abolition of joint and several liability, this Comment advocates adoption of a damage apportionment approach based on proportional damages to the defendant, namely the modified blanket comparative fault approach. This approach will accomplish four things. First, it will end the confusion and unfairness that currently exist as a result of the decision in Field v. Boyer Co. Second, it will ensure that negligent defendants only pay for their portion of fault, and not that of unnamed contributors. Third, it will allow a jury to require full accountability from intentional actors. Last, it will not exclude nonparty actors from the comparative equation. To ensure a fair comparison, actors contributing to the harm should not be removed from the comparative process.
Recommended Citation
Wright, Lee A.
(1998)
"Utah's Comparative Apportionment:
What Happened to the Comparison?,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 1998:
No.
4, Article 3.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol1998/iss4/3