Talk:Joint and several liability
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Top | This article has been assessed as Top-importance on the assessment scale. |
[edit] Rewrite
I've attempted to rewrite a few parts of this article for clarity. In the process, I removed the paragraph below because I don't think that it's correct as written. Even without joint and several liability, the individuals who caused the injury do not get to avoid compensating the victim. They are still responsible for their proportion of liability. It merely changes the amount that they must pay. I suspect this was a misstatement of the principle stated lower in the article that a victim may be undercompensated if one of the defendants is insolvent. Please correct my edit if I misunderstood. I am also standardizing names used in the example to the Ann/Bob/Charlotte/... pattern typically used in mathematics and logic examples. Rossami (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Another premise of joint and several liability is that corporations, individuals and insurers who have caused an injury by violating the law should not be able to avoid compensating the injured victim simply because they were not the only party that substantially contributed to the victim's injuries or losses. The object of this legal principle is to avoid unfairly shifting to victims losses that were brought about by multiple wrongdoers.
I'm also requesting a citation on this comment: Where a financially wealthy defendant can be joined as a defendant, a plaintiff's expected damages increases. I am interpreting that statement as an observation that the damages awarded are statistically higher if there is a weathly defendant joined to the claim. I have heard anecdotes to that effect but have not yet found a reliable study documenting the correlation. If this statement was only attempting to say that the average compensation received is higher (because of the undercompensation when one of the defendants is insolvent), then I think the sentence is redundant and could be removed. Rossami (talk) 19:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are correct, at least in American law. If X is injured in an accident where A, B, and C are jointly and severably liable, then X's damages do not increase just because, say, C is wealthy. The damages X is entitled to are based on the injuries X recieved--it does not change depending on who is named as a defendant. X can, however, recover the entire amount of damages from C--this is the crux of joint liablity (C then may have an action for joinder or indemnity against A and/or B, given the circumstances). --Stankrom 20:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] World view
I've marked this as not representing a worldwide view, as it is entirely focused on US law despite the fact that the opening paragraph says that it is a 'common law doctrine' (ie implying that it is not limited only to the US legal system). Cynical 18:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- It is a common law rule in most English speaking countries, but the bigger problem is that it was only written about tort claims. Really the article needs to be about the different types of liability that all multiple defendant cases can have. I have expanded it a bit (whilst keep the original text, which was all fine), but it could use some extra "meat". I took the tag off too. Legis 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Contracts and taxation
I'm sure this phrase is used in contracts and taxes, as well (e.g. the tenants on a house may be jointly and severally liable for the rent) Morwen - Talk 22:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- When used in Landlord/Tenant law, joint liability means the same thing as it does in tort law, that is, every tenant is liable for the full amount of the contractual rent. I'm not sure that this would require a separate section in the article. Stankrom 20:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
