Howard v. Spafford

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the availability of various contribution schemes and the “complexities” surrounding the rule made reform “more appropriate for legislative than judicial consideration”
• noting that “we will allow the Legislature to determine which approach [to contribution] is best”
• declining to modify the rule against contribution without legislative action, without distinguishing between intentional and negligent tortfeasors
• under 12 VS.A. § 1036, contributory negligence bars recovery where plaintiff’s negligence exceeds fifty percent of total causal negligence
• states reasons why Vermont law precluding contribution between joint tortfeasors would not be overruled
• several liability applies to “joint tortfeasors held liable in a judgment”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).