Joint and Several Liability

Problem

The rule of joint and several liability is neither fair, nor rational, because it fails to equitably distribute liability. The rule allows a defendant only minimally liable for a given harm to be forced to pay the entire judgment, where the co-defendants are unable to pay their share.

ATRA's Position:

ATRA supports replacing the rule of joint and several liability with the rule of proportionate liability. In a proportionate liability system, each co-defendant is proportionally liable for the plaintiff’s harm. For example, a co-defendant that is found by a jury to be 20% responsible for a plaintiff’s injury would be required to pay no more than 20% of the entire settlement. More moderate reforms that ATRA supports include: (1) barring the application of joint and several liability to recover non-economic damages; and (2) barring the application of joint and several liability to recover from co-defendants found to be responsible for less than a certain percentage (such as 25%) of the plaintiff’s harm.

Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar’s argument in support of joint and several liability—that the rule protects the right of their clients to be fully compensated—fails to address the hardship imposed by the rule on co-defendants that are required to pay damages beyond their proportion of fault.

Joint and Several Liability Reform: Medical Liability: S. 83 (2005).

South Carolina|2005

Specifies that if there are multiple defendants in a civil

[…]

Specifies that if there are multiple defendants in a civil action, joint and several liability does not apply to any defendant 50 percent or less responsible for the damages. Furthermore, specified that comparative fault is included in the calculation of total fault in the case. If the plaintiff is found to be greater than 50 percent responsible for the total fault, then the plaintiff is completely barred from recovering damages. A defendant found to be less than 50 percent responsible is only responsible for its proportional share of damages based on its percentage of liability. Retained the right of the “empty chair” defense where a defendant retains the right to assert that another potential tortfeasor, whether or not a party, contributed to the alleged damages and may be liable for any or all damages alleged by another party.

[hide]

Joint and Several Liability Reform: H. 3008 (2005).

South Carolina|2005

Provides that joint and several liability does not apply to

[…]

Provides that joint and several liability does not apply to defendants less than 50 percent responsible of the total fault. In the calculation of total fault, comparative fault of the plaintiff is to be included. If the plaintiff is found to be 50 percent or greater at fault, the plaintiff shall then be barred from recovery. Defendant’s less than 50 percent at fault shall only be responsible for its proportional share of the damages based on its percentages of liability.