Joint Liability vs. Joint-and-Several Forum

[nimhnimh]

(I understand what several liability is)

What is the difference between joint liability and "joint-and-several" liability? Both seem so similar. Thanks!

[missinglink]

Joint (each party is liable to the full amount of damages) and several (each defendant
only pays for their percentage of fault) liability combines both

- With respect to claimant, the parties are jointly liable, but as between obligors, the
liabilities are several

[christmas mouse]

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you are saying, but Joint and Several liability means that the P can collect 100% of her damages from either D. This is great for P's because even if D1 was insolvent and 75% at fault she could collect 100% damages from D2 who is solvent and only 25% at fault.

Joint liability means that the D's are joint tortfeasors. You can be joint tortfeasors in 3 situations:
1. D's acted in concert to cause harm;
2. D's are held liable by operation of law (respondeat superior); and
3. D's caused a single indivisble injury


So as far as i get, its not the diff. between joint liability and J/S liability, its the difference between J/S and comparative fault (pure or modified) that matters, because in either case the parties must be held jointly liable (must be joint tortfeasors) for J/S or Comparative Fault to matter. (*comp fault is always in play for the P as I believe all jurisdictions have gotten rid of Contributory neg. as a full bar to P's claim).

In jurisdictions where J/S is abolished and we use comp fault each D is only liable for his % of fault. This sucks for P because if D1 is 90% at fault but insolvent and D2 is 10% at fault but very solvent (like a car manufacturer) the P can only get 10% from D2 and whatever measly amount D1's insurance covers. So if P's injuries were $1,000,000 P could get $100,000 from D2, but lets say only $50,000 from D1 and P now has to eat the $850,000 loss.

[romothesavior]

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you are saying, but Joint and Several liability means that the P can collect 100% of her damages from either D. This is great for P's because even if D1 was insolvent and 75% at fault she could collect 100% damages from D2 who is solvent and only 25% at fault.

Joint liability means that the D's are joint tortfeasors. You can be joint tortfeasors in 3 situations:
1. D's acted in concert to cause harm;
2. D's are held liable by operation of law (respondeat superior); and
3. D's caused a single indivisble injury


So as far as i get, its not the diff. between joint liability and J/S liability, its the difference between J/S and comparative fault (pure or modified) that matters, because in either case the parties must be held jointly liable (must be joint tortfeasors) for J/S or Comparative Fault to matter. (*comp fault is always in play for the P as I believe all jurisdictions have gotten rid of Contributory neg. as a full bar to P's claim).

In jurisdictions where J/S is abolished and we use comp fault each D is only liable for his % of fault. This sucks for P because if D1 is 90% at fault but insolvent and D2 is 10% at fault but very solvent (like a car manufacturer) the P can only get 10% from D2 and whatever measly amount D1's insurance covers. So if P's injuries were $1,000,000 P could get $100,000 from D2, but lets say only $50,000 from D1 and P now has to eat the $850,000 loss.

+1. If this doesn't answer your question, then I don't know what your question is.

[Cosmo Kramer]

Maybe I'm not understanding exactly what you are saying, but Joint and Several liability means that the P can collect 100% of her damages from either D. This is great for P's because even if D1 was insolvent and 75% at fault she could collect 100% damages from D2 who is solvent and only 25% at fault.

Joint liability means that the D's are joint tortfeasors. You can be joint tortfeasors in 3 situations:
1. D's acted in concert to cause harm;
2. D's are held liable by operation of law (respondeat superior); and
3. D's caused a single indivisble injury


So as far as i get, its not the diff. between joint liability and J/S liability, its the difference between J/S and comparative fault (pure or modified) that matters, because in either case the parties must be held jointly liable (must be joint tortfeasors) for J/S or Comparative Fault to matter. (*comp fault is always in play for the P as I believe all jurisdictions have gotten rid of Contributory neg. as a full bar to P's claim).

In jurisdictions where J/S is abolished and we use comp fault each D is only liable for his % of fault. This sucks for P because if D1 is 90% at fault but insolvent and D2 is 10% at fault but very solvent (like a car manufacturer) the P can only get 10% from D2 and whatever measly amount D1's insurance covers. So if P's injuries were $1,000,000 P could get $100,000 from D2, but lets say only $50,000 from D1 and P now has to eat the $850,000 loss.

The only thing I would add is that pretty much every state that still has J/S liability has limited it so that the bolded situation doesn't happen. There is usually a 50-65% threshold where you can no longer collect 100% of damages from a defendant without his responsibility having surpassed that number.