Professional Documents
Culture Documents
TYPES OF LIABILITY
Lecture 2-
Liability in tort may be independent, joint or several. Where the C has the option of suing
more than one tortfeasor, special rules deal with the possibility of successive actions by
the C and the claims for contribution between defendants.
Independent liability
Independent liability arises where the P suffers damage as a result of two completely
separate torts. Each tortfeasor is liable for the damage he inflicts. The C is only entitled to
sue each tortfeasor in respect of damage caused by the tortfeasor.
Example: if As car is damaged on the right hand side by Bs negligence and a week later
C drives negligently into the left hand side of the car, B and C are independently liable
for the damage they inflicted.
Joint liability
If two or more tortfeasors commit a joint breach of duty or act in furtherance of a
common design then they are joint tortfeasors. In case of joint liability each tortfeasor is
liable for the full amount but the P can recover only once.
Case: Brooke v Bool (1928)
Joint liability also arises in cases where an employer is held liable for the torts committed
by the employee (vicarious liability), principle and agent and between an employer and
independent contractor.
Joint and several liability has two consequences;
a) Successive actions by the P and
b) Contribution between the defendants.
Successive actions by the Plaintiff
At common law two consequences followed if two or more persons were found to be
joint tortfeasors:
2 Second consequence of finding joint liability at common law was that the release of
joint tortfeasor had the effect of releasing the other tortfeasors. Where liability was
several, the release of one tortfeasor did not affect the liability of the others. The
reasoning behind this rule was that in case of joint liability only one tort was
committed so release of one tortfeasor must automatically result in the release of
others. Whereas in cases of several liability this rule did not apply because the
obligations of several tortfeasors were independent. The rule in case of joint liability
has not been reversed.
Example:
A collision occurs between three cars driven by D1, D2 and D3. As a result, a pedestrian
P is injured.
P has a choice as to whether to sue D1, D2, or D3, or he could issue a single writ against
all three.
If P chose to sue D1 and was successful, recovering 30,000 in damages, D1 cold then
bring contribution proceedings against D2 and D3 with in two years. The court would
then have to determine the relative contribution of the three parties. If D1 was held to be
25% to blame then he could recover 22,500 from D2 and D3. If D2 was found to be
50% to blame, then D1 would recover 15,000 from him and the remainder from D3.
Suppose P sued all three defendants and was awarded 30,000. He would then have a
choice as to which D to enforce the judgment against. That person would then have to
seek a contribution from others. This leaves the P with the option of enforcing against a
solvent defendant.