Technology
Joint and Several Liability in Tort Lawsuits
Quick fact
Under joint and several liability, a plaintiff can recover the entire judgment from any one of multiple defendants, leaving that defendant to pursue contribution from the others—a rule that has been significantly modified or abolished in many U.S. states.
Why this is interesting
If a truck and a car collide and injure a pedestrian, can the pedestrian recover the full amount of damages from just the truck driver, even if the car driver caused most of the harm? The answer, under a centuries-old rule, is yes.
Read the full explanation
Understanding Joint and Several Liability in Tort Lawsuits
Imagine you are a pedestrian hurt in an accident caused by two drivers. Under the old common law rule, you could sue both, but you could also collect the entire court-awarded damages from either one, regardless of how much each contributed to the harm. This is joint and several liability: the defendants are jointly liable because each is responsible for the whole harm, and severally liable because you can sue them separately. The idea is to protect the plaintiff—the victim—by ensuring they can always recover, even if one defendant is bankrupt or untraceable. The defendants then must sort out among themselves who pays what, through legal claims called contribution or indemnity. This rule is simplest when each defendant's negligence independently caused the same indivisible injury.
A deeper explanation
The doctrine rests on the principle that a single injury can be caused by multiple tortfeasors, and the law refuses to leave the plaintiff undercompensated. By making each defendant liable for the entire harm, the risk of collection is shifted from the innocent plaintiff to the wrongdoers, who are in a better position to seek contribution from each other. Historically, this was the default rule. However, critics argue it is unfair: a defendant who is only 1% at fault can be forced to pay 100% of the damages, especially if the other defendant is insolvent. This has led to widespread reforms. Many states now adopt several-only liability or a hybrid rule that applies joint and several liability only when a defendant's share exceeds a certain threshold, or when the plaintiff is not at fault. Comparative fault systems further complicate matters by reducing a defendant's liability proportionally. The tension is between compensating the plaintiff (favoring joint liability) and fairness to defendants (favoring several liability).