American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court

Supreme Court of California · 1978 · Torts

578 P.2d 899 (1978)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsComparative negligenceJoint and several liabilityEquitable indemnityContributionCross-complaintscomparative indemnitypartial indemnity

Facts

Plaintiff Glen Gregos, a teenage boy, sought damages for severe spinal injuries suffered while riding in a novice cross-country motorcycle race. His complaint alleged that AMA and Viking Motorcycle Club negligently designed, supervised, administered, and promoted the race, including failing to give reasonable safety instructions, failing to classify riders by skill, and allowing overcrowding on the course. AMA denied liability and sought leave to cross-complain against Glen's parents, alleging they knew motorcycle racing was dangerous, knew Glen's level of training, signed the parental consent form, and negligently failed to supervise him. AMA sought indemnity and a declaration allocating the parents' negligence to reduce AMA's liability.

Issue

Does California's adoption of comparative negligence in Li abolish or limit joint and several liability of concurrent tortfeasors? If not, may a concurrent tortfeasor nevertheless obtain partial indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis, and may that claim be asserted by cross-complaint against previously unnamed parties?

Rule

After Li, each concurrent tortfeasor whose negligence is a proximate cause of an indivisible injury remains jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff's total damages, diminished only by the proportion of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. At the same time, California common law equitable indemnity is modified to permit a concurrent tortfeasor to obtain partial indemnity from other concurrent tortfeasors on a comparative fault basis. California's contribution statutes do not preclude this common law development, and a defendant may file a cross-complaint against any person, whether already a party or not, from whom the defendant seeks total or partial indemnity, subject to the trial court's power to order separate trials if needed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Sacramento, Nora Kim was struck in a chain-reaction collision caused by two negligent drivers, Devin Cross and Elena Soto. A jury finds Nora 15% at fault for stepping into traffic while distracted, Devin 75% at fault, and Elena 10% at fault; Devin is insolvent.

If Nora seeks to recover from Elena alone, which result is most consistent with the governing rule?

Explanation. The majority held that adoption of comparative negligence did not abolish or contract joint and several liability for concurrent tortfeasors causing an indivisible injury. Each tortfeasor whose negligence is a proximate cause remains liable for the whole compensable loss, diminished only by the percentage of negligence attributable to the plaintiff. Elena's smaller share of fault and Devin's insolvency do not reduce Nora's rights against Elena.