Joint and several liability holds multiple parties fully liable for damages, regardless of their actual liability. It combines joint and multiple liability, leading to controversy. Detractors call it the “deep pockets” rule. Advocates argue it protects victims’ ability to receive compensation.
Joint and several liability is a legal term that describes a situation where several parties can be held fully liable for damages, regardless of the actual liability shared by each individual party. In other words, an individual can be found and held liable for 100% of the damages, even though that individual was in fact only liable for causing 10% of the damages. Joint and several liability is often considered by many to be a controversial practice in jurisdictions that use it due to the fact that all parties can be held liable for the full amount of damages, regardless of their actual liability.
There are three main types of liability. The former is known as joint liability and occurs when two or more people jointly share full responsibility for an obligation. An example of joint liability would be when a husband and wife purchase a vehicle and both of their names are on the loan to purchase the vehicle. If the husband or wife were to die, the surviving person would still be liable for the full amount of the loan.
The second type of liability is called multiple liability, which means that all parties are separately liable. In addition liability, each party is only liable for its share of the damages or liability. If two people are found guilty of causing damage, but a judge or jury finds that one person is only liable for 20% of the damages, that individual would only be liable to pay up to 20% of the damages.
Joint and several liability is a combination of the first two types of legal liability where liable parties can be held liable either as a party or as individual parties. However, if one party is held liable, all parties are fully liable for all damages. This has led many detractors of the joint liability system to call it the “deep pockets” rule, as it often encourages litigants to seek out and sue defendants who are able to pay damages, regardless of liability.
In one well-known case in the United States, a large amusement park was forced to pay 86% of the damages sustained by a guest who was injured in the park, even though the park was found to be liable for only 1% of the damages. the plaintiff injury. Plaintiff herself was held responsible for 14% of her injuries and her boyfriend was held responsible for 85%. Since the actor’s boyfriend was unable to pay damages, the carnival, being the only solvent party among those held liable, was required to pay the one per cent it was held liable for and 85 per cent of which the actor’s boyfriend was responsible for.
Tort reform advocates often cite this case as evidence that the joint and several liability system needs to be done away with because the amusement park paid for the vast majority of the damages, even though it was only responsible for one percent of the plaintiff’s injuries. Others believe that the joint and several liability regime helps protect a victim’s ability to receive compensation, especially when one of the additional perpetrators is unable to pay damages.
Protect your devices with Threat Protection by NordVPN
