Comment by Reginald R. White, III
Comparative responsibility refers to the application of comparative apportionment to all tort suits, including those involving intentional torts. Although a handful of courts have adopted it, many courts have refused to do so. This Comment analyzes the barriers to the adoption of comparative responsibility and suggests that they are illusory. However, a blanket application of comparative responsibility is inappropriate. The Comment advocates the adoption of “comparative responsibility sometimes,” which requires an ad-hoc analysis using policy guidelines to determine whether comparative apportionment should be applied in suits involving intentional torts. Specifically, the Louisiana approach to “comparative responsibility sometimes,” as exemplified by Veazey v. Elmwood Plantation Associates, Ltd., is examined. The Comment concludes that the Louisiana approach is essentially unworkable and proposes new guidelines for when comparative apportionment should be applied in suits involving intentional torts.
About the Author
Reginald R. White, III. Senior Notes and Comments Editor. B.A. 1993, Tulane University; J.D. Candidate 1996, Tulane Law School.
Citation
70 Tul. L. Rev. 1501 (1996)