What is the effect of Li v. Yellow Cab's rule of pure comparative negligence on multiple parties?

The petition for writ of mandate which is here before us raises the manner in which Li v. Yellow Cab is to be applied to the situation of multiple parties, all of whom are asserted to be negligent in a manner proximately contributing to a plaintiff's injury. Specifically, the petition concerns the right of a named defendant to bring persons not named as defendants into the action by a cross-complaint alleging the negligence of those persons and its proximate causation of the injury for which the complaint

Page 499

We conclude that: (1) Li v. Yellow Cab's rule of 'pure comparative negligence' fastens liability upon a person 'in direct proportion to his negligence'; (2) the rule of comparative negligence requires modification of California's pre-Li doctrine of joint and several liability of concurrent tortfeasors; ¹ and (3) a defendant may crosscomplain to bring other persons into the action so that the proportion of his negligence may be compared to theirs and the modified rule of liability of concurrent tortfeasors applied to the situation of multiple parties.

Facts