PART II.
UNIFORM CONTRIBUTION AMONG TORTFEASORS ACT
Case Notes
Joint and several liability imposed on asbestos manufacturers
in products liability action. 960 F.2d 806 (1992).
Discussed, where defendant did not have a right of
contribution for intentional torts alleged in the complaint against it. 293 F.
Supp. 2d 1144 (2003).
§663-11 Joint tortfeasors defined. For
the purpose of this part the term "joint tortfeasors" means two or
more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person
or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of
them. [L 1941, c 24, §1; RL 1945, §10487; RL 1955, §246-10; HRS §663-11]
Rules of Court
Parties, see HRCP rules 19, 20; DCRCP rule 20.
Law Journals and Reviews
Ozaki and Comparative Negligence: Imposing Joint Liability
Where a Duty to Protect or Prevent Harm from Third Party Intentional
Tortfeasors Exits Is Fairer to Plaintiffs and Defendants. 26 UH L. Rev. 575
(2004).
Case Notes
As to rights of the children against driver of other car.
244 F.2d 604 (1957).
Settlement of action by defendants established both
defendants as joint tortfeasors. 884 F.2d 492 (1989).
There must be common liability to injured person. 73 F.
Supp. 707 (1947).
Father may not be joined as joint tortfeasor where children
are plaintiffs. 135 F. Supp. 376 (1955).
Master and servant not joint tortfeasors, where master liable
only under doctrine of respondeat superior. 7 H. 196 (1887).
Culpability among joint tortfeasors. 45 H. 128, 363 P.2d 969
(1961).
Minor son of plaintiff may be liable as joint tortfeasor to
plaintiff. 51 H. 74, 450 P.2d 998 (1969).
Parents are liable for torts to their minor children, and
they may be joined as joint tortfeasors in action by children against third
party. 51 H. 484, 462 P.2d 1007 (1969).
An employee and employee's vicariously liable employer are
joint tortfeasors as defined by this section. 78 H. 1, 889 P.2d 685 (1995).
Where condominium association's and murderer's tortious
conduct resulted in same injury to victim, condominium association and murderer
were joint tortfeasors. 87 H. 273 (App.), 954 P.2d 652 (1998).
Construing the language of §§431:10C-301 and 431:10C-103
governing uninsured motorist (UM) and underinsured motorist (UIM) insurance
according to their plain and commonly understood meaning and in pari materia
with §663-10.9 and this section, UM and UIM policies must provide coverage for
all damages which an insured is legally entitled to recover from the owner or
operator of an uninsured or underinsured motor vehicle, which necessarily
encompasses damages for which the owner or operator of an uninsured or
underinsured motor vehicle is jointly and severally liable pursuant to
§663-10.9 and this section. 120 H. 329 (App.), 205 P.3d 594 (2009).
Cited: 133 H. 1, 323 P.3d 792 (2014).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
48
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 1970–2025 · leading case:
Saranillio v. Silva, 889 P.2d 685 (Haw. 1995).
Saranillio v. Silva, 889 P.2d 685 (Haw. 1995).
· cites it 38× “There are two versions of the UCATA, the original version promulgated in 1939 by the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws and the revised 1955 version.”
Mr. & Mrs. Doe Parents No. 1 v. State, Dep't of Educ., 58 P.3d 545 (Haw. 2002).
· cites it 20× “3d 407 (2000) [hereinafter Gump II ] ("A party is liable within the meaning of section 663-11 if the injured person could have recovered damages in a direct action against that party, had the injured person chosen to pursue such an action.”
Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83 (Haw. 2003).
· cites it 14× “2d 685, 693 (1995) (noting that Hawai'i adopted the 1939 version of the UCATA in HRS §§ 663-11 to 663-17); 1941 Haw. Sess.”
Moyle v. Y & Y Hyup Shin, Corp., 191 P.3d 1062 (Haw. 2008).
· cites it 26× “" Gump I and Gump II looked to the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), HRS §§ 663-11 to 663-17 (1993 & Supp.2003), to determine whether the trial court erred in declining to include McDonald's restaurant, a nonparty joint tortfeasor under HRS § 663-11, [7] on the…”
Petersen Ex Rel. Petersen v. City & Cnty. of Honolulu, 462 P.2d 1007 (Haw. 1970).
· cites it 12× “The City answered and counterclaimed against the parents for contribution pursuant to the Uniform Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors Act as adopted in Hawaii, HRS §§ 663-11 to 663-17, alleging that the parents' negligence in supervision of their child was the sole or a…”
Gump v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5 P.3d 407 (Haw. 2000).
· cites it 8× “Whether Wal-Mart was entitled to set off the McDonald’s settlement under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA), HRS §§ 663-11 to 663-17 (1993 & Supp.1999), is a question of statutory interpretation.”
Ozaki v. Ass'n of Apt. Owners of Discovery Bay, 954 P.2d 644 (Haw. 1998).
· cites it 11× “In sum, the ICA reasoned that: (1) application of HRS § 663-31 is limited to cases in which negligence is the only alleged basis of liability; (2) HRS § 663-31 did not apply to the present matter, and the plaintiffs’ recovery was therefore determined by principles of pure…”
Tabieros v. Clark Equip. Co., 944 P.2d 1279 (Haw. 1997).
· cites it 4× “For purposes of UCATA, HRS § 663-11 (1993) defines the term "joint tortfeasors” to mean "two or more persons jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been recovered against all or some of them.”
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp.., 323 P.3d 792 (Haw. 2014).
· cites it 4× “” HRS § 663-11. In this regard, a plaintiff can only recover jointly and/or severally against two or more defendants if he can recover against each defendant.”
Whirlpool Corp. v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit, Inc., 293 F. Supp. 2d 1144 (D. Haw. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Haw.Rev.Stat. § 663-11: "Joint tortfeasors” are "two or more persons jointly and severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property, whether or not judgment has been- recovered against all or some of them.”
Woodrum v. Johnson, 559 S.E.2d 908 (W. Va. 2001).
· cites it 2× “(quoting 1939 UCATA § 1, HRS § 663-11 (1985) (emphasis supplied)).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.