Legal Definitions - empty-chair doctrine

The empty-chair doctrine refers to a legal strategy employed by a defendant in a lawsuit to attribute fault, either partially or entirely, to an absent party who is not named as a defendant in the current case. This absent party is metaphorically referred to as the "empty chair" because they are not present in court to defend themselves or be held directly liable in that specific proceeding. The primary purpose of this doctrine is often to reduce the present defendant's own liability by arguing that the absent party was the true cause or a significant contributing cause of the plaintiff's damages. This strategy is particularly relevant in jurisdictions that allow for comparative fault, where a defendant's liability can be reduced based on the percentage of fault assigned to other parties, even if those parties are not part of the lawsuit.

• Example 1: Multi-Vehicle Accident

  Imagine a scenario where a passenger (Plaintiff) sues Driver A for injuries sustained in a three-car pile-up. Driver A, the defendant, might invoke the empty-chair doctrine by arguing that a third, unidentified hit-and-run driver (the "empty chair") was actually the primary cause of the initial collision. Driver A would present evidence suggesting that the hit-and-run driver's reckless actions forced Driver A to swerve, leading to the subsequent impact with the Plaintiff's vehicle. By successfully shifting some or all of the blame to the absent driver, Driver A aims to reduce their own financial responsibility for the passenger's injuries.

• Example 2: Construction Defect Lawsuit

  Consider a homeowner (Plaintiff) who sues a general contractor (Defendant) for significant structural defects in their newly built house. The general contractor, using the empty-chair doctrine, might argue that a specific plumbing subcontractor (the "empty chair") was solely responsible for installing faulty pipes that led to a severe water leak, which in turn caused the structural damage. If the plumbing subcontractor has since gone out of business or cannot be located to be added to the lawsuit, the general contractor would present evidence of the subcontractor's negligence to demonstrate that another party, not present in court, was truly at fault, thereby attempting to lessen their own liability to the homeowner.

• Example 3: Medical Malpractice Claim

  Suppose a patient (Plaintiff) sues a surgeon (Defendant) for complications following a surgical procedure. The surgeon might utilize the empty-chair doctrine by asserting that a different specialist (the "empty chair"), who provided post-operative care and is not named in the lawsuit, failed to properly monitor the patient's recovery or administer necessary follow-up treatments. The surgeon would present medical records and expert testimony to show that the absent specialist's negligence significantly contributed to, or was the sole cause of, the patient's subsequent complications, thereby attempting to deflect blame from themselves.