Fatal Collision Makes Car-Sharing Worries No Longer Theoretical

Absent special laws protecting rental car companies from their drivers' actions they too would be liable for me taking my rental and ramming it into a McDonald's before fleeing the country.

Accordingly, when someone is found liable in tort, it doesn't necessarily mean the court is blaming them for the accident.

Let me give a classic example. Three men go out hunting. They come to a clearing, and two of the men go around on the left and the third goes around on the right.

A game bird flies up from the clearing when the two groups are on opposite sides. Both men on the left fire at the bird. One of them gets the bird. One of them misses the bird but hits their companion who was going around the right.

It is not possible to determine which man shot the bird and which shot the human. Both shooters claim that they definitely shot the bird, of course.

The third man sues the first two. There's no outcome that does not screw at least one of the three:

1. The court could find neither shooter is liable, since it cannot be proven which actually fired the errant shot. That screws the third man since he got shot and cannot collect damages from the shooter.

2. The court could find that both shooters are liable, and make each pay half the damages. Assuming each shooter can actually afford half the damages that is fair to the third man, but screws whichever shooter actually hit the bird.

3. Furthermore, in #3, support it turns out one of the shooters has a lot more money than the other. Then in addition to screwing one of the shooters, the third man could get screwed in that he might not be able to collect enough to cover his medical bills.

4. The court could find that the two shooters are jointly liable, and not even try to allocate blame between them. The third man can enforce the judgement against them however he wants. So, if one shooter has a lot of money and one does not, the third man would enforce against the one with the most money. This is good for the third man as it lets him get his medical bills covered. It potentially screws the wealthy shooter, though, if in fact he was the one who shot the bird--he's left holding the bag for all of the damages.

The way it actually happens in most states is #4. The idea is that of the three men the one who least deserves getting screwed is the guy who got shot, so we want to maximize the chances that he can recover full damages, and can do so quickly. Only #4 ensures that.

As far as the shooters go, if one of them isn't happy with the way the third man chooses to go about collating the damages, he's free to file a lawsuit against the other shooter to recover the amount he thinks he was unfairly forced to pay.

Note that even though one of the shooters did not shoot the third man, it was his shot that created the ambiguity as to which one of them did shoot the third man.

This is called "joint and several liability".

This is a pretty good system. It lets the party that is actually injured get damages quicker to get them on the road to recovery (and keep them from getting bankrupted by medical bills), but still lets the parties that contributed to the injury fight it out among themselves to figure out how, ultimately, the damages should be split among them.

Note: joint and several liability only applies to defendants who do have some liability, as determined by the court, I believe.

1. Both men that fired a shot are found liable because firing a shot knowing one of the men may be in a line of fire is irresponsible and potentially criminal.

2. None of the men that fired a shot are found liable because the third man went into a section of the forest he wasn't supposed to go into because by doing so he put human life under significant risk.

3. The establishment that manages the hunting grounds (a private organization, the state, or even the federal government) is found liable because it didn't properly segment the area to sufficiently prevent risk of human injuries.

4. All three men are found liable because they didn't properly define necessary rules in order to prevent risk of human injuries.

In fact, in this case I'd argue that it's irrelevant which man fired a shot that hit the third man. Either

a) Both mean fired when they weren't supposed to, in which case they're both liable.

b) The third man went where he wasn't supposed to, in which case he is fully liable for his own injuries.

c) A third party organization that manages the hunting grounds didn't properly set up the rules, in which case it is liable.

d) The men were responsible for setting up the rules themselves, in which case all three of them are liable.

If you look at the case this way, you can easily find an outcome that doesn't screw anyone. Someone was responsible for ensuring proper safety precautions, and they didn't do their job. That party (or group of parties) is liable. The others are not.