You are on page 1of 3

CHAPTER 2

TYPES OF LIABILITY
Lecture 2-

Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.


Learning Outcomes:
Define and understand the difference between Independent, several and joint
liability.
The consequence of each different type of liability on the defendant.

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.

Several (or concurrent) liability


If more than one tortfeasor acts independently to cause the same damage to the P then
they are severally liable. The main feature of this liability is that the tortfeasors act
independently to cause the same damage to the P. In cases of several liability each
tortfeasor is separately liable in respect of the damage but the P may recover damages
only once.
Example: Two careless motorists collide and injure a pedestrian.

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:

1 A judgment against one tortfeasor barred a subsequent action against the


others. This was so even if the judgment was unsatisfied. This rule was reversed by
s.3 of the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
judgment recovered against any person liable in
respect of anydamage shall not be a bar to any action,
or to the continuation of an action, against any other
person who is (apart form any such bar) jointly liable
with him in respect of the same damage.
This statutory provision removed an important distinction between joint and several
liability, as the common law rule against successive actions did not apply to several
tortfeasors.
** Where the P sues joint or several tortfeasors together, one judgment is given for a
single sum.

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.

Contribution between tortfeasors


At common law the rule was that a joint or several tortfeasor could not recover a
contribution or indemnity from other tortfeasors in the absence of an agreement between
them. This rule has been reversed by ss1 & 2 of Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978.
s.1 entitlement to contribution
s.2 assessment of contribution

Entitlement to contribution under s.1


s.1 provides that:
subject to the following provisions of this section, any person
liable in respect of any damage suffered by another person
may recover contribution from any other person liable in
respect of the same damage (whether jointly liable with him or
otherwise).
The person seeking contribution must actually be liable; therefore if the P could not
establish liability, no contribution is recoverable.
If the person has already paid the P then s 1(2) provides that he will be entitled to a
contribution even though he has ceased to be liable to the P. The person from whom the
contribution is sought is liable to make the payment even though he is no longer liable to
the original P.

Assessment of contribution under s.2


The amount of contribution would be the one that the court finds to be just and equitable
having regard to the persons responsibility for the damage in question. The court has to
take into account all the relevant circumstances, such as degree of blameworthiness and
the parties role in bringing about the damage. The court may exempt a party from having
to pay a contribution or pay a complete indemnity.

Type of Liability Position under common law 1978 Act


Joint liability Judgment against one bars an Bar against other
action against other tortfeasors removed under
tortfeasors. s. 3
Several Liability No restriction on bringing an
action against other
tortfeasors
Joint liability Release of one tortfeasor The rule remains the same
meant a release of other
tortfeasors
Several Liability Release of one tortfeasor did The rule remains the same
not affect the liability of
others

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.

You might also like