Joint and several liability

Where Two or More Persons are Liable in Respect of the Same Liability

  In most common law legal systems they may either be:
  • jointly liable, or
  • severally liable, or
  • jointly and severally liable.

Joint liability

If parties have joint liability, then they are each liable up to the full amount of the relevant obligation. So if a husband and wife take out a loan from a bank, the loan agreement will normally provide that they are to be "jointly liable" for the full amount. If one party dies, disappears or is declared bankrupt, the other remains fully liable. Accordingly, the bank must sue all living co-promisors, for the full amount. However, in suing, the creditor only has one course of action, i.e., the creditor can only sue for each debt once. If, for example, there are three partners, and the creditor sues all of them for the outstanding loan amount and one of them pays the liability, the creditor cannot recover further amounts from the partners who did not contribute to the liability.

Several liability

The converse is several liability, where the parties are liable for only their respective obligations. A common example of several liability is in syndicated loan agreements, which will normally provide that each bank is severally liable for its own part of the loan. If one bank fails to advance its agreed part of the loan to the borrower, then the borrower can only sue that bank, and the other banks in the syndicate have no liability.

Joint and several liability

Under joint and several liability, a claimant may pursue an obligation against any one party as if they were jointly liable and it becomes the responsibility of the defendants to sort out their respective proportions of liability and payment. This means that if the claimant pursues one defendant and receives payment, that defendant must then pursue the other obligors for a contribution to their share of the liability.

Joint and several liability is most relevant in tort claims, whereby a plaintiff may recover all the damages from any of the defendants regardless of their individual share of the liability. The rule is often applied in negligence cases, though it is sometimes invoked in other areas of law.

In the United States, 46 of the 50 states have a rule of joint and several liability, although in response to "tort reform" efforts, some have limited the applicability of the rule.


If Ann is struck by a car driven by Bob, who was served in Charlotte's bar (and the state has dramshop laws), then both Bob and Charlotte may be held jointly liable for Ann's injuries. The jury determines Ann should be awarded $10 million and that Bob was 90% at fault and Charlotte 10% at fault.
  • Under proportionate liability, Bob would have to pay $9M and Charlotte would have to pay $1M. If Bob does not have any money, Ann only gets the $1M from Charlotte.
  • Under joint and several liability, Ann may recover the full damages from either of the defendants. If Ann sued Charlotte alone, Charlotte would have to pay the full $10M despite only being at fault for $1M. Charlotte would then either have to join Bob as defendant in Ann's suit against her or would have to pursue a separate action against Bob for $9M. Regardless of the outcome of that action, Charlotte would remain liable to Ann for the full $10M.

Arguments for and against joint and several liability

Joint and several liability is premised on the theory that the defendants are in the best position to apportion damages amongst themselves. Once liability has been established and damages awarded, the defendants are free to litigate amongst themselves to better divide liability. The plaintiff no longer needs to be involved in the litigation and can avoid the cost of continuing litigation. As Dean Prosser observed:

“Here again is the typical case that two vehicles which collide and injure a third person. The duties which are owed to the plaintiff by the defendants are separate, and may not be identical in character or scope, but the entire liability rests upon the fact that each has contributed to the single result, and that no reasonable division can be made.” “Joint Torts & Several Liability” (1939), 25 Cal. L. Rev. 413.

Defenders of the principle of joint and several liability further argue that it protects victims from being undercompensated if one of the defendants cannot pay his or her share of proportionate liability. The argument follows is that an innocent Plaintiff should not be forced to shoulder the burden of injuries that were not his or her fault. A tortfeasor, even if only 1% at fault, is the better party to shoulder the burden if the primarily responsible party is unable to compensate the victim fully.

Opponents of the principle of joint and several liability note that its use (instead of proportionate responsibility) has led to cases in which a party with a very minor part of the responsibility unfairly shoulders the burden of damages. The classic example is the uninsured drunk driver who injures someone; the plaintiff will sue both the insolvent drunk driver and the state highway department (or automobile manufacturer), hoping to hold the latter 1% or 2% responsible, thereby forcing them to pay the entire award. Joint and several liability, reform supporters argue, leads to lawyers searching for "deep pockets" to sue (in the expectation that they will settle rather than risk trial), even though those defendants may only be remotely related to an incident.

According to Richard Wehe, Assistant Chief Counsel at the California Department of Transportation, (Caltrans), "I can tell you that in many, many settlement conferences or mediations I am confronted with plaintiff's lawyer's statements that, 'I only need to establish that the state is 1 % at fault and I can recover all of my economic damages.'"

Where a financially wealthy party can be joined as a defendant, a plaintiff has a greater chance of recovering damages than when the defendants have very limited economic resources or are financially insolvent, or "judgment proof".

Legal Real Estate Books