On occasion, a fact pattern will arise in a tort action where a concurrent omission by two negligent defendants has brought about a situation causing injury to an innocent plaintiff. When this happens, the element of causation must be carefully analyzed because it is possible that both defendants could be exonerated, leaving the plaintiff without redress. The purpose of this note is to demonstrate how the academics and the courts choose to deal with concurrent omissions that prevent an innocent plaintiff from meeting the burden of proof on causation. Providing insight into how these situations could best be handled in the future relies on the foundation of policy concerns that arise in the context of concurrent omission cases. Whether to exonerate one negligent defendant because another individual has also acted negligently in the same set of circumstances is ultimately a question of policy.
Amy J. Vyhlidal,
Concurrent Omission: How Should Liability be Allocated? Haag v. Bongers, 256 Neb. 170, 589 N.W.2d 318 (1999),
78 Neb. L. Rev.
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol78/iss4/11