Connection lost
Server error
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: In an admiralty case with multiple tortfeasors, the Court held that a non-settling defendant’s liability is reduced by the settling defendants’ percentage of fault (proportionate share), not by the dollar amount of the settlement (pro tanto).
Legal Significance: Established the “proportionate share” rule for partial settlements in admiralty tort cases, rejecting the pro tanto approach. This aligns a tortfeasor’s liability with its adjudicated fault, making it responsible only for its equitable share of damages, regardless of the plaintiff’s settlement with others.
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClyde Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Petitioner McDermott, Inc. sued multiple defendants after a crane it purchased failed, causing significant damage. The defendants included the crane manufacturer (AmClyde), the hook supplier (River Don), and three sling suppliers (the “sling defendants”). Before trial, McDermott settled with the sling defendants for $1 million, releasing them from liability. The case proceeded to trial against the non-settling defendants, AmClyde and River Don. The jury determined McDermott’s total damages were $2.1 million. In special interrogatories, the jury allocated proportionate fault for the damages as follows: 32% to AmClyde, 38% to River Don, and 30% jointly to McDermott and the settling sling defendants. The central dispute became how to credit the $1 million settlement against the jury’s verdict. The non-settling defendants argued for a pro tanto credit, which would deduct the $1 million settlement amount from the total damages. McDermott argued for a proportionate share credit, which would reduce the non-settling defendants’ liability by the 30% fault attributed to the settling parties. The Court of Appeals applied a version of the pro tanto rule, leading to the Supreme Court’s review to establish a uniform rule for admiralty.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In an admiralty case involving multiple tortfeasors, should the liability of non-settling defendants be reduced by the dollar amount of a plaintiff’s settlement with other tortfeasors (the pro tanto approach), or by the percentage of fault the jury attributes to the settling tortfeasors (the proportionate share approach)?
The Court held that the proportionate share approach is the proper method Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea co
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
In an admiralty case involving multiple tortfeasors, should the liability of non-settling defendants be reduced by the dollar amount of a plaintiff’s settlement with other tortfeasors (the pro tanto approach), or by the percentage of fault the jury attributes to the settling tortfeasors (the proportionate share approach)?
Conclusion
This decision establishes the proportionate share rule as the uniform federal maritime Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in
Legal Rule
In admiralty cases, when a plaintiff settles with one or more joint Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
Legal Analysis
The Court, exercising its authority to fashion remedies in admiralty law, evaluated Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In admiralty cases, when a plaintiff settles with some tortfeasors, the