Joint and Several Liability in Minnesota: The 2003 Model

51 Pages Posted: 26 Dec 2009

Date Written: 2004


The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will have the economic impact its proponents suggest it will have is a question that is not susceptible of a ready answer now, or perhaps in the immediate future. From a fairness standpoint, any assessment of the amendment has to take into consideration the full reach of the Comparative Fault Act. It is important to understand that on balance the Act works to the disadvantage of the plaintiff in a variety of ways. The plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the fault of any individual against whom recovery is sought. Aggregate comparisons of the fault of two or more defendants are not permitted except in limited cases. The fault of non-parties may also be taken into consideration in allocating fault. Those factors combine to restrict tort recoveries.

Keywords: liability, Minnesota law, comparative fault, loss reallocation, joint and several liability

Suggested Citation

Steenson, Michael K., Joint and Several Liability in Minnesota: The 2003 Model (2004). William Mitchell Law Review, Vol. 30, No. 3, p. 845, 2004, Available at SSRN:

Michael K. Steenson (Contact Author)

Mitchell Hamline School of Law ( email )

875 Summit Ave
St. Paul, MN 55105-3076
United States
651-290-6366 (Phone)
651-290-6406 (Fax)

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
PlumX Metrics