## Facts

- A minor, Glen Gregos, suffered serious injuries while participating in a novice motorcycle race.
- The race was organized and conducted by the American Motorcycle Association (AMA) and the Viking Motorcycle Club.
- Gregos sued AMA and Viking for negligence, alleging unsafe organization, supervision, and precautions.
- AMA denied negligence and alleged Gregos’s conduct contributed to the injuries.
- AMA sought leave to file a cross-complaint against Gregos’s parents, alleging negligent supervision and seeking partial indemnity based on the parents’ comparative share of fault.
- The trial court denied AMA leave to file the cross-complaint.
- AMA sought a writ of mandate compelling the trial court to permit the cross-complaint.

## Issues

1. Whether comparative negligence requires abolition or limitation of joint and several liability for an indivisible injury caused by multiple negligent tortfeasors.
2. Whether a concurrently negligent tortfeasor may obtain partial equitable indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative-fault basis.
3. Whether a defendant may implead additional alleged tortfeasors by cross-complaint in the same action to obtain allocation of fault and partial indemnity.

## Decision

- The court issued a peremptory writ of mandate directing the trial court to vacate its order and allow AMA to file the cross-complaint against the parents.
- The court held that adoption of comparative negligence does not abolish or reduce joint and several liability as between plaintiff and defendants for an indivisible injury proximately caused by each defendant.
- The court recognized partial equitable indemnity among concurrent tortfeasors measured by comparative fault.
- The court approved use of cross-complaints as a procedural means to bring additional alleged tortfeasors into the action to obtain comparative allocation of responsibility.

## Legal Principles

- For an indivisible injury, each tortfeasor whose negligence is a proximate cause remains jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for the full amount of damages, reduced only by the plaintiff’s comparative fault.
- The ability to allocate relative fault does not transform an indivisible injury into a divisible one for purposes of joint and several liability.
- A concurrently negligent defendant has no equitable right, as against the plaintiff, to reduce its liability merely because another tortfeasor also contributed to the same harm.
- Concurrent tortfeasors may seek partial equitable indemnity from one another based on comparative fault, permitting allocation of loss in proportion to relative responsibility.
- Cross-complaints may be used to join additional alleged tortfeasors in the same proceeding to resolve comparative indemnity and avoid inconsistent results.

## Conclusion

The court preserved joint and several liability for indivisible injuries despite comparative negligence, while permitting defendants to seek partial equitable indemnity based on comparative fault through cross-complaints that bring other responsible tortfeasors into a single action.


American Motorcycle Ass’n v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 3d 578 (Cal. 1978)