## Facts

- Tia Marie Glomb, an infant, was cared for during the work week by in-home babysitters because both parents worked full time and the father frequently traveled for work.
- After a prior babysitter quit, the parents quickly hired Sherry Ginosky in August 1982 to provide in-home care.
- In the weeks that followed, the parents observed bruises on the child; Ginosky gave explanations the father found implausible, and the father observed the child appeared afraid of Ginosky.
- In late October 1982, the parents discovered a large, hand-shaped bruise on the child’s leg; the father warned Ginosky she would be discharged if further bruising occurred.
- Two days later, while in Ginosky’s care, the child suffered severe facial and head injuries and was found unconscious by paramedics.
- The parties agreed Ginosky intentionally inflicted the injuries; the jury found the parents negligently hired and retained Ginosky.

## Issues

1. Whether the jury should have been permitted to apportion liability between the negligent parents and the intentional tortfeasor babysitter, rather than imposing joint and several liability without percentage allocations.
2. Whether the $1.5 million verdict for the child was so excessive as to require remittitur or a new trial.

## Decision

- The Superior Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the judgment.
- The trial court properly refused to permit apportionment of liability between the negligent parents and the intentional tortfeasor where their conduct combined to cause a single, indivisible injury.
- Joint and several liability was properly imposed as to the child.
- The trial court’s direction that the parents were entitled to indemnity from the babysitter preserved a mechanism for reimbursement without limiting the child’s recovery.
- The $1.5 million verdict was supported by the evidence and was not so excessive as to shock the conscience or show improper influence on the jury.

## Legal Principles

- When separate acts combine to produce a single, indivisible injury, each tortfeasor may be held liable for the entire harm under joint and several liability, and apportionment is not required.
- A negligent actor and an intentional tortfeasor may be jointly and severally liable to the injured plaintiff for an indivisible injury, even if their forms of fault differ.
- Indemnity may shift ultimate financial responsibility among defendants without reducing the plaintiff’s right to recover the full judgment from any jointly liable defendant.
- An appellate court will not disturb a jury’s damages award unless it is so grossly excessive as to shock the conscience or indicates partiality, prejudice, mistake, or corruption.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a verdict holding parents jointly and severally liable with an intentionally abusive babysitter for the child’s indivisible injuries, rejected fault apportionment between negligent and intentional tortfeasors in this setting, and upheld the $1.5 million award as not excessive under the governing appellate standard.


Glomb v. Glomb, 530 A.2d 1362 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1987)