Before Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre and Cherry. Opinion by Justice Parraguirre.
In this petition for writ of mandamus, the Court considered whether the district court erred in compelling petitioners (Carey Humphries and Lorenza Rocha, II) to join an intentional tortfeasor (Erik Ferrell) as a necessary party in petitioners’ action against a negligent cotortfeasor (New York-New York). Ferrell and petitioners were involved in an altercation at New York-New York after which Ferrell was arrested and convicted for battery. Petitioners sued New York-New York for negligence. The complaint did not include any claims against Ferrell. New York-New York asserted petitioners’ comparative negligence as an affirmative defense and argued that Ferrell was a necessary party for determining comparative negligence under NRS 41.141. The Court focused its inquiry on whether the absence of a cotortfeasor eliminates the requirement for apportionment of liability as set forth in NRS 41.141(2)(b)(2). In answering in the affirmative, the Court noted that a plaintiff who sues one tortfeasor may recover 100% of damages from that tortfeasor even if another, absent tortfeasor is also at fault. Given this finding, the Court concluded that it can accord complete relief to all parties even when a cotortfeasor is not named in the action. Thus, an absent cotortfeasor is not a necessary party under NRCP 19(a) when a jointly and severally liable defendant is sued. The Court noted that although petitioners would not be compelled to join Ferrell as a codefendant, New York-New York was free to implead Ferrell based on the theory of contribution. Petition granted. (Amanda M. Perach, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
