Keep it Straight or Pay More Than Your Share: Deciphering Fabre and Set-Offs in Multiple Defendant Cases

When two or more people are responsible for causing harm in a lawsuit, it can be tricky to figure out how much each person should pay. This gets even more complicated if some of the people settle the case before it goes to trial. Some people argue that because of this, a rule called Fabre doesn’t apply. They say that a different rule called set-off should be used instead. However, this argument doesn’t make sense because Fabre and set-off are actually two different things. This article will explain how to figure out how much each person should pay in these situations and provide a chart to help lawyers quickly determine the likely outcome. In Florida, when multiple people are at fault for causing an injury, they are all responsible for the entire consequence of their actions. Each person’s share of fault is determined by a jury, and they are only responsible for their share of non-physical damages. However, they are all responsible for the economic damages, so the full amount can be collected from any one of them. The court will only allow a set-off (reduction) in the amount of damages claimed if the same damages were sought from multiple people. The set-off is calculated by multiplying the ratio of economic damages to the total damages by the settlement amount. So, if one person is found to be 25% at fault, they owe 25% of the total damages. Defendant 1 had to pay $5,325 for economic damages, and Defendant 2 had to pay $49,175 for both economic and non-economic damages, even though they were only 25% liable. This is because of a set-off for economic damages, which helps make sure that healthcare providers get paid and the plaintiff doesn’t have to pay more than their fair share. In the end, if there’s extra money, the plaintiff will get it. The plaintiff sued a healthcare facility and two home health agencies for negligence. The healthcare facility and one home health agency settled before trial. The jury awarded the plaintiff money, but the trial court reduced it because of the settlements. The plaintiff appealed, saying the settlements should not have affected the award because they were for different types of damages. The appeals court agreed and said the settlement with the healthcare facility should not have been deducted from the award, but the settlement with the home health agency was okay to deduct. The court also said the plaintiff’s own fault affected the award. Some argue that this case changes the way fault is divided in lawsuits, but that’s not true. The court still considered the plaintiff’s own fault and divided the damages fairly among the defendants.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/keep-it-straight-or-pay-more-than-your-share-deciphering-fabre-and-set-offs-in-multiple-defendant-cases/