Worksheet - GUTOWSKI v.

CITY OF NEW BRITAIN

Read these paragraphs from the case and complete these notes by writing one word from the
case in each space.

 This action was brought by the plaintiff, Michael A. Gutowski, acting by his mother and
next friend, Dorothy G. Mozden, who also sued in her individual capacity. The suit was for
injuries caused by an assault and battery. The plaintiffs sued three police officers. Only
Berg appealed.

 Berg and two other police officers used physical force to restrain the plaintiff. This force
included inflicting blows/injuries on the side of the plaintiff’s head and other parts of his
body.

 The court concluded that the defendants acted concurrently in committing an assault and
battery on the plaintiff.

 The court found that their assault and battery on the plaintiff was the proximate cause of
his injuries and that defendant were jointly and severally liable to the plaintiff for
damages.

 Berg claimed that the evidence failed to support these conclusions.

 The court rejected Berg’s contention. “Where two or more persons unite in an act which
constitutes a wrong to another, intending at the time to commit it, or in doing it under
circumstances which fairly charge them with intending the consequences which follow,
they incur a joint and several liability for the acts of each and all of the joint participants.”

 The court said that to make the injured party ascertain how much of the injury was done
by one person and how much by another would cause a “denial of justice.”

 The law allows the injured party to treat all concerned in the injury as constituting one
party who by their joint cooperation caused the injury and are liable for all of the
damages.

 When one or more of the actors seek to limit his liability by claiming that it is possible to
apportion the blame, the burden of proof is on that actor.

 Therefore, Berg cannot prevail by trying to put the burden of showing which injuries Berg
inflicted on the plaintiff. Both defendants acted maliciously, willfully and without
provocation in beating the plaintiff. These circumstances justify the application of the rule
on joint liability and no apportionment of harm among joint tortfeasors.

 For this reason, we find no merit in the defendant Berg’s appeal.