negligence, which 532 generally barred claims by
joint tortfeasors.
The early common law held
joint tortfeasors jointly and severally liable for any indivisible injury their joint negligence caused a plaintiff to suffer.
Because punitive damages are designed to punish the wrongdoer, and not to compensate the injured party, they can neither be apportioned nor subject to contribution among
joint tortfeasors.
Editor's Note: Physicians should exercise due care whenever having any work done in their offices, lest a cause of action arise against them, whether as a
joint tortfeasor or otherwise.
Fabre held that all
joint tortfeasors may be placed on a verdict form so that fault could be apportioned among all persons (parties or nonparties) who may have contributed to an accident.
24) As discussed at note 21, under the unjust enrichment analysis, A and B are
joint tortfeasors vis-a-vis the third party.
23) Therefore, Hogan's doctrinal response: if two defendants were
joint tortfeasors, they were liable; if several concurrent tortfeasors, they were all on the hook.
86) The only Australian case cited by White J is Belan v Casey, in which Campbell J, in obiter, referred to Lingard v Bromley ('Lingard'), (87) Attorney-General (UK) v Wilson ('Wilson'), (88) and a 19th century text, (89) in support of the application of the joint fraud rule to
joint tortfeasors.
The "major"
joint tortfeasors may still be required to pay judgments in full, subject to the payor's continuing right of contribution.
The Restatement of Torts describes the common law as providing that the liability of
joint tortfeasors (PRPs) should be apportioned where there is a "reasonable basis" for determining the contribution of each cause to a "single harm.
The trial court's ruling implicitly suggested that there was no dispute concerning whether the defendants were subsequent tortfeasors, rather than
joint tortfeasors.
Joint tortfeasors are subject to joint and several liability.
