Project Work Of Law Of Torts On JOINT TORTFEASORS

Submitted To:HARISH CHANDRA SALVE FACULTY OF LAW OF TORTS

Submitted By :-

NAGENDAR KUMAR RAM 1st Year B.A. LL.B. (Hons) ROLL NO. 945.

JOINT TORTFEASORS

TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER NO. 1. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION: JOINT TORTFEASORS OBJECTIVES HYPOTHESIS RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. LEGAL REGIMES DETERRENCE FULL SOLVENCY: NEGLIGENCE STRICT LIABILITY LIMITED SOLVENCY CONTRIBUTION BETWEEN WRONG-DOERS CONCLUSION BIBLIOGRAPHY PAGE NO.

INTRODUCTION: JOINT TORTFEASORS

When two or more persons whose negligence in a single accident or event causes damages to another person. In many cases the Joint TortFeasors are jointly and severally liable for the damages, meaning that any of them can be responsible to pay the entire amount, no matter how unequal the negligence of each party was. Example: Harry Hotrod is doing 90 miles an hour along a two-lane road in the early evening, Adele Aimster has stopped her car to study a map with her car sticking out into the lane by six inches. Hotrod swings out a couple of feet to Miss Aimster's vehicle, never touches the brake, and hits Victor Victim, driving from the other direction, killing him. While Hotrod is grossly negligent for the high speed and failure to slow down, Aimster is also negligent for her car's slight intrusion into the lane. As a Joint Tortfeasor she may have to pay all the damages, particularly if Hotrod has no money or insurance. However, comparative negligence rules by statute or case law in most jurisdictions will apportion the liability by percentages of negligence among the Tortfeasors (wrongdoers) and the injured parties. Two or more persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when the wrongful act, which has resulted in a single damage, was done by them, not independently of one another/ but in furtherance of a common design. When two or more persons are engaged in a common pursuit and one of them in the course of and in furtherance of that commits a tort, both of them will be considered as joint tortfeasors and liable as such. In Brook v. Bool1, A and B entered Zs premises to search for an escape of gas. Each one of them, in turn, applied naked light to the gas pipe. As application resulted in a explosion, causing damage to Zs premises. In this case, even though the act of A alone had caused the explosion, but both A and B were considered to be joint tortfeasors and thus held liable for the damage. Person having certain relationships are also treated as tortfeasors. The common examples of the same are: Principal and an Agent, Master and the Servant and a partners in a Partnership firm.2 If an agent does a wrongful act in the scope of his employment for his principal, the principal can be made liable along with the agent as a joint tortfeasor.3 Similarly, when the servant commits a tort in the course of employment of his master, both the master and the
1 2 3

[1928] 2 K.B. 578. The Koursk, Law Reports [1924] Probate Division 140, at p. 155. See S. 238, I.C.A.; Lloyd v. Grace Smith and co., [1912] A.C. 716.

servant are liable as joint tortfeasors. In the same way, for the wrongful act done by one partner in a partnership firm, in the course of performance of his duties as a partner, all the other partners in the firm are liable along with the wrongdoer.4 Therefore the liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The plaintiff has a choice to sue anyone of them, some of them or all of them, in an action. Each one of them can be made to pay the full amount of compensation. Thus, for the wrong done by the agent, both the principal and the agent are jointly and severally liable. Even though the actual wrongdoer is the agent, if the plaintiff so elects, he may sue the principal for the whole of the damage. As agent the aggrieved party, the principal cannot take the defence that the actual wrongdoer was the agent, although after making good the loss, the principal may hold the agent responsible to the extent of his (agents) faults. Similarly, for the wrongful act done by the servant, the master is liable along with the servant as a joint tortfeasor and for the wrongful act of a partner, the firm is liable therefore to the same extent as the guilty partner. Where the plaintiff elects to bring an action against all of them jointly, judgement obtained against all of them may be executed in full against any of them.5 In the event of liability of joint tortfeasors, it is no concern of the tribunal to apportion the damages between them.6 In Sasidharan v. Sukumaran,7 a wrongly parked truck was hit by a bus driven rashly and negligently and a person sitting in the truck sustained injuries. Tribunal held that both the drivers were equally negligent. Damages was caused not by joint action but separate actions independent of each other. The injured was held not entitled to claim the entire amount of compensation awarded from driver, owner or insurance company of either of the two vehicles as both drivers were not joint tortfeasors and their liability was not joint and several.

4 5

See Ss. 25-27, Indian Partnership Act; Hamlyn v. Hauston and Co., (1903) 1 K.B. 81. Jai Singh v. Mansa Ram, A.I.R 1963 H.P. 37, at p. 43; Egger v. Viscount Chemsford, 1965 1 Q.B. 248. 6 United India Fire and General Insurance Co. v. Ms. Sayar Kanwar A.I.R. 1976 Raj. 173,180. 7 2006 ACJ 945 (Ker).

OBJECTIVES
The researcher prime objective is to validate the significance of Joint tortfeasors. It aims to what is joint tortfeasors? and it aims to critically provide a vivid account of the case law, statutes and legislations which provide a platform in the Joint Tortfeasors. The researcher is going to limit the scope, its background and cases related to it. He will also aim to critically analyze the limits and liability parties and their rights and duties. The researcher is going to limit its scope to joint tortfeasors. The researcher have also aim to explain the concept of joint tortfeasors and will also describe that how the negligence of two persons causes a breach of tort and leads to joint tortfeasors. Two or more persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when the wrongful act, which has resulted in a single damage, was done by them, not independently of one another/ but in furtherance of a common design. Hence the researcher will explain that how two person are said to be a joint tortfeasors.

HYPOTHESIS

A tort is a type of civil wrong for which a person adversely affected or injured thereby can claim damages. Therefore a joint tortfeasor means when two or more person commits a crime or breaches a tort, then they are liable to compensate damages to the person who is injured. When two or more persons are engaged in a common pursuit and one of them in the course of and in furtherance of that commits a tort, both of them will be considered as joint tortfeasors and liable as such. The researcher will describe that how the breach of tort by two person leads to joint tortfeasor. So the researcher will describe his own prospective towards this topic with a vivid description

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

For the purpose of research, the researcher has relied on various books, articles, websites and newspaper. The sources from which the material for this research collected are secondary. So the methodology used in the research has been Doctrinal. Non-doctrinal method has not been used by the researcher in this research. The researcher has relies on primary sources to look for information relating to the statutes and laws for joint tortfeasors. The researcher has done this keeping in mind the frequently asked questions arising out of this topic. The researcher has aimed at doctrinal method of research and will try to critically analyse and provide an unbiased account on the joint tortfeasors.

LEGAL REGIMES
The choice between joint and several liability and non-joint liability arises in situations in which the plaintiffs injury results from the actions of multiple parties. Under joint and several liability, if the plaintiff litigates against many defendants and prevails against only one, he can recover his full damages from that defendant; if the plaintiff prevails against all defendants but some are insolvent, he can recover his full damages from the solvent defendants; and if the plaintiff prevails against all defendants and all are solvent, he can nonetheless choose to recover his full judgment from any defendant or to are cover a portion from each. In contrast, under non-joint liability, the plaintiff can recover from a losing defendant only the share of the damages attributable to that defendant