Legal Memorandum: Comparative Negligence Multiple Tortfeasors

Issue: Under the laws of Wisconsin and Minnesota, how is comparative negligence applied in a situation involving multiple tortfeasors, as in the case of a joint venture?

Wisconsin has a statute almost identical to Minnesota.  I have included several Wisconsin cases that may be helpful, although none of them is precisely on point. Ozzello v. Peterson Builders, Inc. 743 F. Supp. 1302 (E.D. Wis. 1990); Wisconsin Natural Gas v. Ford, Bacon Davis Constr., 291 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1980); Reiter v. Dyken, 290 N.W.2d 510 (Wis. 1980); Pachowitz v. Milwaukee & Suburban Transp. Corp, 202 N.W.2d 208 (Wis. 1972); Dombeck v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co., 129 N.W.2d 185 (Wis. 1964);  Nischke v. Farmers Merchants Bank & Trust, 522 N.W.2d 542 (Wis. Ct. App. 1994); Group Health v. Hartland Cicero Mut., 476 N.W.2d 302 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991); Bruttig v. Olsen, 453 N.W.2d 153 (Wis. Ct. App. 1989);   Vermont also has a similar statute, but there are no annotations to the statute.  Some states, including Wyoming and Arkansas, have had similar statutes in the past but have amended their laws.  See Board of City Commissioners v. Ridenour, 623 P.2d 1174 (Wy. 1981).

Several states have statutes allowing the plaintiff’s fault to be compared to that of the "party or parties" or "defendant or defendants" against whom the plaintiff claims damages.  See Ark. Stat. § 16-64-122 (Supp. 1997); Iowa State § 668.3 (1987).  Several states have statutes allowing the plaintiff’s fault to be compared to the combined negligence of all tortfeasors.  See Ohio Stat. Ann. § 2315.19 (Supp. 1996); Or. Stat. […]