30 William Mitchell Law Review 845 (2004)
The 2003 amendment to Minnesota’s Comparative Act can be assessed in various ways. Whether it will have the economic impact its proponents suggest it will have is a question that is not susceptible of a ready answer now, or perhaps in the immediate future. From a fairness standpoint, any assessment of the amendment has to take into consideration the full reach of the Comparative Fault Act. It is important to understand that on balance the Act works to the disadvantage of the plaintiff in a variety of ways. The plaintiff cannot recover if the plaintiff’s fault is greater than the fault of any individual against whom recovery is sought. Aggregate comparisons of the fault of two or more defendants are not permitted except in limited cases. The fault of non-parties may also be taken into consideration in allocating fault. Those factors combine to restrict tort recoveries.
Steenson, Michael K., "Joint and Several Liability in Minnesota: The 2003 Model" (2004). Faculty Scholarship. 72.