Joint Tortfeasor

Two or more individuals with joint and several liability in a tort action for the same injury to the same person or property.

To be considered joint tortfeasors, the parties must act together in committing the wrong, or their acts, if independent of each other, must unite in causing a single injury. All who actively participate in the commission of a civil wrong are joint tortfeasors. Persons responsible for separate acts of Negligence that combine in causing an injury are joint tortfeasors. The plaintiff has the option of suing one or more of the tortfeasors, either individually or as a group.

If the plaintiff is awarded damages, each joint tortfeasor is responsible for paying a portion of the damages, based on the percentage of the injury caused by his or her negligent act. The defendant who pays more than his or her share of the damages, or who pays more than he or she is at fault for, may bring an action to recover from the other culpable defendants under the principle of contribution.

Mentioned in ?

References in periodicals archive ?

Commentators also have noted that you need not invent the concept of piercing when the common law concept of "joint tortfeasor" can hold a party directly liable for arranging a tortious act effected by another.

Corporate insulation and piercing the veil

principles related to joint tortfeasor claims reveals that this threat

The Common Law of Liable Party CERCLA Claims

(3) Nowhere is that more true than in Australian law, where the question of whether a defendant can be liable as a joint tortfeasor for assisting a primary tortfeasor remains unsettled.

LIABILITY FOR ASSISTING TORTS

He also said that Niantic could potentially be at risk under a concurrent negligence or joint tortfeasor theory.

Hunting Pokemon raises liability issues when incidents happen

(48) The exclusion of joint tortfeasor liability from Section 271(a), however, stems from concern over holding unwitting participants, such as innocent customers, jointly and severally liable for direct infringement.

Patent law - divided infringement of method claims: Federal Circuit broadens direct infringement liability, retains single entity restriction - Akamai Technologies, Incorporated v. Limelight Networks, Incorporated

2) A sued joint tortfeasor may implead others or may later commence a contribution action against those not joined, as prescribed in the first Contribution among Joint Tortfeasors Act.

An alternative view of refining comparative fault in Florida

Payne, Release of one joint tortfeasor as discharging liability of others under Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act and other statutes expressly governing effect of release, 6 A.L.R.

Donee beneficiaries and the parol evidence rule

Editor's Note: Physicians should exercise due care whenever having any work done in their offices, lest a cause of action arise against them, whether as a joint tortfeasor or otherwise.

Medical law cases of note

(8) The Florida Supreme Court held that comparative negligence would not ordinarily apply in enhanced injury cases, ruling that the tortfeasor who caused the crash was not a joint tortfeasor with the manufacturer and could not be on the verdict form.

The enhanced injury doctrine: how the theory of liability is addressed in a comparative fault world

(indicating that each joint tortfeasor is liable for plaintiffs entire

Neither joint nor several: orphan shares and private CERCLA actions

Accordingly, while a joint tortfeasor jointly and severally liable for more than 50% of total liability may still be required to pay the entirety of a judgment, the joint tortfeasor that is assessed 50% or less of the total liability may only be required to pay damages toward satisfaction of a judgment for non-economic loss to the extent of its own equitable share.

The extrapolation of defendants' liabilities under CPLR Article 16 where the plaintiff is contributorily negligent: an update toward resolving a perceived ambiguity of CPLR 1601

Thus, the conclusion that not all claims between PRPs are contribution claims is based on the conclusion that not all PRPs are joint tortfeasors. (150) The [section] 107(a)(4)(B) plaintiff is a joint tortfeasor with the other PRPs only after there has been a judgment or settlement.

United States v. Atlantic Research Corp.: who should pay to clean up inactive hazardous waste sites?