Fiveable
Fiveable
Fiveable
Fiveable

6.4 Multiple Causes and Joint Tortfeasors

3 min readLast Updated on July 23, 2024

When multiple parties cause harm, things get complicated. Multiple causes involve separate actions contributing to harm, while joint tortfeasors act together. Both scenarios can lead to full liability for each party involved.

Liability can be joint and several, allowing full recovery from any defendant, or several, limiting each party's responsibility. Courts use various methods to apportion fault and damages, balancing fairness with ensuring victims receive compensation.

Multiple Causes and Joint Tortfeasors

Multiple causes and joint tortfeasors

Top images from around the web for Multiple causes and joint tortfeasors
Top images from around the web for Multiple causes and joint tortfeasors
  • Multiple causes occur when more than one tortfeasor's actions substantially contribute to the plaintiff's harm (car accident involving multiple negligent drivers)
    • Each tortfeasor's conduct must be a substantial factor in causing the harm, but their actions need not be simultaneous or coordinated
  • Joint tortfeasors are two or more defendants whose combined actions result in a single, indivisible injury to the plaintiff (defective product manufactured by one company and sold by another)
    • Each joint tortfeasor is liable for the entire harm caused to the plaintiff, regardless of their individual degree of fault
    • The plaintiff has the right to sue one, some, or all of the joint tortfeasors to recover damages

Joint vs several liability

  • Joint and several liability allows the plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any one of the joint tortfeasors (plaintiff can choose to collect the entire judgment from a single wealthy defendant)
    • The defendant who pays the full amount may seek contribution from other joint tortfeasors to apportion the damages based on their relative fault
  • Several liability limits each defendant's liability to their proportionate share of the harm caused, based on their percentage of fault (plaintiff must collect each defendant's share of the damages separately)
    • If one defendant is insolvent or unable to pay, the plaintiff may not recover that portion of the damages, as the other defendants are not responsible for covering the shortfall

Apportionment of liability

  • Comparative fault systems apportion liability based on each party's degree of fault, as determined by the jury (assigning percentages of fault to each defendant and the plaintiff)
    • Each defendant is responsible for paying their share of the damages based on their percentage of fault, reducing the likelihood of a single defendant bearing the entire financial burden
  • Contribution allows a joint tortfeasor who has paid more than their share of the damages to seek reimbursement from other joint tortfeasors (defendant who pays 80% of the damages can seek contribution from a defendant who was 50% at fault)
    • Contribution is based on the relative degrees of fault among the joint tortfeasors and is governed by state laws, such as the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA) in some jurisdictions

Application to real-world scenarios

  • Two negligent drivers collide, causing injury to a pedestrian. The drivers are joint tortfeasors, and the pedestrian can recover the full amount of damages from either driver.
  • A manufacturer produces a defective product, which is then sold by a retailer to a consumer who suffers an injury. The manufacturer and retailer are joint tortfeasors, and the consumer can sue either or both for the full amount of damages.
  • A construction worker is injured due to the combined negligence of the property owner, general contractor, and subcontractor. The worker can sue any or all of the parties, and the defendants' liability will be apportioned based on their comparative fault (property owner 50%, general contractor 30%, subcontractor 20%).

Key Terms to Review (14)

Apportionment of Liability: Apportionment of liability refers to the legal process of determining the share of responsibility for a tortious act among multiple parties involved in causing harm. This concept is crucial when there are multiple causes for an injury or when more than one party is at fault, as it helps in assigning appropriate levels of compensation based on each party's degree of negligence or fault.
Comparative Negligence: Comparative negligence is a legal doctrine used to assess the degree of fault or responsibility of each party involved in a tort claim, allowing for the apportionment of damages based on their respective levels of negligence. This concept helps determine how much compensation a plaintiff can recover if they are found partially at fault for their own injuries, thereby promoting fairness in liability assessments.
Concurrent tortfeasors: Concurrent tortfeasors are two or more individuals or entities whose separate actions combine to cause a single injury or harm to a plaintiff. This situation typically arises when multiple parties act independently but their collective negligence or wrongful acts lead to the same harmful outcome, highlighting the shared responsibility among them for the resulting damages.
Contribution: Contribution refers to the legal doctrine that allows joint tortfeasors to seek reimbursement from each other for their respective shares of liability in a tort action. This concept is crucial in cases involving multiple parties who are responsible for causing harm, ensuring that defendants who are equally at fault can share the burden of damages awarded to the plaintiff. It creates a fair system where each tortfeasor pays their proportional share, preventing one party from bearing the entire cost of liability.
Indemnity: Indemnity refers to a legal principle where one party agrees to compensate another for certain losses or damages. This concept is crucial in situations involving multiple parties who may share liability for an injury or damage, allowing them to allocate the responsibility among themselves. Indemnity ensures that the financial burden falls on the appropriate party, promoting fairness and equitable distribution of losses among joint tortfeasors.
Intervening Cause: An intervening cause is an event that occurs after a defendant's act and contributes to the harm suffered by the plaintiff, potentially breaking the chain of causation. This concept is crucial for determining liability, as it helps establish whether the defendant's actions were the direct cause of the injury or if another factor intervened that might lessen or negate their responsibility.
Joint and several liability: Joint and several liability is a legal concept in tort law that holds multiple parties responsible for a single harm or injury, allowing a plaintiff to recover the entire amount of damages from any one of the responsible parties. This means that each party can be held individually liable for the entire amount, regardless of their individual share of the fault. It encourages plaintiffs to pursue claims against any of the tortfeasors, ensuring that they are not left without compensation due to one party's inability to pay.
Mann v. Ford: Mann v. Ford is a pivotal case concerning environmental torts and joint tortfeasors, where plaintiffs claimed that Ford Motor Company was liable for contaminating the groundwater in a community due to improper disposal of toxic substances. The case highlights the complexities involved in determining liability when multiple parties contribute to harm, particularly in situations of environmental damage. It emphasizes the need for courts to assess the degree of fault and the contributions of each defendant in cases with multiple causes of injury.
Preponderance of the Evidence: Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof commonly used in civil cases, where the party bearing the burden must show that their claims are more likely true than not. This means that the evidence presented must demonstrate that there is a greater than 50% chance that the assertion is true, which is less rigorous than the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard used in criminal cases. This concept is crucial in evaluating liability and defenses in various legal situations.
Proximate Cause: Proximate cause, also known as legal cause, refers to the primary cause that is legally sufficient to hold a party liable for damages resulting from their actions. It connects the defendant's conduct with the harm suffered by the plaintiff and establishes whether the harm was a foreseeable result of that conduct.
Substantial factor test: The substantial factor test is a legal standard used to determine whether a defendant's conduct was a significant factor in bringing about a particular harm or injury. This test is particularly relevant when multiple causes contribute to a single outcome, helping to establish actual cause when the traditional 'but-for' test may not apply. It emphasizes that a defendant's actions can be considered a cause of the harm even if they were not the sole cause, as long as they contributed meaningfully to the result.
Summers v. Tice: Summers v. Tice is a landmark case from 1948 that established a legal precedent for liability when multiple parties are responsible for causing a single injury but it is impossible to determine which party caused the harm. This case is essential in understanding how courts address situations involving multiple causes and joint tortfeasors, emphasizing the burden of proof and the doctrine of alternative liability.
Superseding Cause: A superseding cause is an event or action that intervenes after a defendant's negligent act and effectively breaks the chain of causation, relieving the defendant of liability for the resulting harm. This term is significant in understanding how certain intervening actions can diminish or eliminate a defendant's responsibility when the intervening act is unforeseeable and significant enough to warrant such a break in liability.
Vicarious Liability: Vicarious liability is a legal doctrine that holds one party responsible for the negligent actions of another, typically in an employer-employee relationship. This concept allows an injured party to seek compensation from an employer when an employee causes harm while performing work-related duties, even if the employer was not directly at fault. Understanding this principle is essential in various contexts, such as how strict liability applies to employers, or how special relationships influence the duties and responsibilities involved.
Apportionment of Liability
See definition

Apportionment of liability refers to the legal process of determining the share of responsibility for a tortious act among multiple parties involved in causing harm. This concept is crucial when there are multiple causes for an injury or when more than one party is at fault, as it helps in assigning appropriate levels of compensation based on each party's degree of negligence or fault.

Term 1 of 14

Key Terms to Review (14)

Apportionment of Liability
See definition

Apportionment of liability refers to the legal process of determining the share of responsibility for a tortious act among multiple parties involved in causing harm. This concept is crucial when there are multiple causes for an injury or when more than one party is at fault, as it helps in assigning appropriate levels of compensation based on each party's degree of negligence or fault.

Term 1 of 14

Apportionment of Liability
See definition

Apportionment of liability refers to the legal process of determining the share of responsibility for a tortious act among multiple parties involved in causing harm. This concept is crucial when there are multiple causes for an injury or when more than one party is at fault, as it helps in assigning appropriate levels of compensation based on each party's degree of negligence or fault.

Term 1 of 14



© 2025 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.

© 2025 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.
Glossary
Glossary