Top Law Schools

(I understand what several liability is)

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

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

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.

christmas mouse wrote: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.

christmas mouse wrote: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.