Joint and Several Tortfeasors in Torts | Civil Law for Judiciary Exams PDF Download

The Concept of Joint Tortfeasors

• All individuals who assist, advise, direct, or participate in the commission of a wrongful act are considered joint tortfeasors.
• Joint tortfeasors collaborate to cause harm to a third party, collectively sharing liability for civil wrongs.
• Each tortfeasor is individually responsible for the portion of damages they have caused, with compensation divided based on their respective contributions to the harm.
• The principle of contribution allows a party who has paid more than their share to the plaintiff to seek reimbursement from other tortfeasors for the excess amount paid.

Illustrative Explanation

• Imagine two individuals, A and B, collaborate to vandalize a car belonging to C. In this scenario, A and B are joint tortfeasors because they have jointly participated in causing harm to C's property.
• If A causes more damage to the car compared to B, the compensation owed by each individual will be proportional to the extent of damage they individually caused.
• Suppose A pays the entire compensation to C. According to the principle of contribution, A can later recover the portion of the payment that exceeds their share from B, as B shares responsibility for the damage caused.

Joint Liability of Tortfeasors in India

• The concept of joint liability of tortfeasors in India is not explicitly covered by statutory law. Instead, Indian courts have relied on precedents set by cases like Brinsmead and Merryweather.
• In a notable case, Khushro S. Gandhi vs. Guzdar, the Supreme Court of India diverged from English common law principles. The traditional idea that each tortfeasor is individually liable for the entire damage was rejected.
• The court established that for joint tortfeasors, all parties must contribute to full satisfaction of the plaintiff's claims or what the law deems as sufficient compensation before any joint tortfeasor can claim accord and satisfaction.

Liabilities of a Tortfeasor

• Agency: When an individual acts on behalf of another person, they are considered the agent of that person. In cases of agent-principal relationships, if a tort is committed by an agent within the scope of their business activities, both the agent and the principal will share joint liability.
• Vicarious Liability: This type of liability occurs when a person is held accountable for a tort committed by someone else. In such cases, the liability of both parties is combined, leading to joint liability. For instance, if a servant commits a tort, the master will also bear responsibility, making them joint tortfeasors.
• Joint Action: When two or more individuals collectively commit a civil wrong, they are held jointly and severally liable for their actions. This means that each individual involved shares responsibility for the wrongful act.

Difference between Joint and Several Liabilities

• Joint Liability:
  • Both parties share equal and full responsibility for the offense committed.
  • Either or both parties can be sued for the entire obligation.
  • Each party is jointly and wholly liable for the wrongdoing.
• Several Liability:
  • Responsibility is divided among the parties based on their share of the wrongdoing.
  • Each party is only responsible for their portion of the offense.
  • Parties are not held accountable for the share of wrongdoing committed by others.

Key Differences

• Joint Liability:
  • Parties are equally and entirely liable for the offense.
  • One or both parties can be sued for the full obligation.
• Several Liability:
  • Responsibility is divided among the parties.
  • Parties are accountable only for their respective share of the wrongdoing.

Legal Implications

• Joint Liability:
  • If a joint tortfeasor is not included in the lawsuit, they can still be sued later for compensation.
  • Defendants retain the right to seek contribution from jointly liable parties not sued by the plaintiff.
• Several Liability:
  • Provides a more equitable distribution of responsibility among tortfeasors.
  • Allows for the defendant to seek contribution from other parties later, even if not initially sued.

Conclusion

The laws and principles associated with joint tortfeasors are pivotal, particularly in understanding the distinction between jointly and severally liable parties. This differentiation holds significance in the context of the contribution theory, determining which parties can seek contribution from other tortfeasors. The analysis provides a comprehensive view of how an agreement of several liability allows a defendant to pursue contribution from those who were jointly liable but were not sued by the plaintiff, for any reason. On the other hand, the concept of jointly liable parties does not permit this, leading to a gap between justice and equity, as well as fairness.