Joint Tortfeasors

When two or more persons commit a tort, all of them become joint tortfeasors and joint wrongdoers. To become joint tortfeasors, they must commit the wrong together, or their acts must unitedly cause a single injury.

When awarding damages to the plaintiff, each tortfeasor has to pay his part of compensation depending upon the injury he has caused. Joint tortfeasors may or may not directly participate in the commission of the tort, but they must act in furtherance of a standard design.

In some cases, persons with certain relationships are joint tortfeasors such as principal and agent, master and his agent, partners in a partnership firm, etc. 

There must be a relation between the act of one tortfeasor and the other, which ultimately damages the third person.

Circumstances of Liability of Joint Tortfeasors

• Agency

As per the agency, when one person employs, appoints, or authorises a person to do a false act, then the principal and the agent both become wrongdoers. Both of them are held accountable.

A principal is someone who legally authorised someone to act on his behalf.

An agent legally acts on behalf of the principal while dealing with a third person during a business transaction. The principal is liable if he gives unlawful instructions to the agent, has negligently hired the agent, or has failed to supervise the agent.

• Vicarious Liability

Under this, liability lies on a person who has some legal relationship with the person who has committed the wrong. In such a situation, both the persons, one who has committed the wrong and the other who is legally related to him, are considered joint tortfeasors.

Four important kinds of vicarious liability are:

• Principal-Agent Relationship
• Partners
• Master and Servant
• Employer and Independent Contractor

In India, the state is responsible under vicarious liability, and it can declare immunity if the act is of a sovereign characteristic.

• Joint or Standard Action

Under the law of torts, more than one person is said to be joint tortfeasors if they have acted conjointly, or the same action follows if one of them has induced the other to perform tort.

Two principles are involved in joint or common action-

• Additional liability
• The tort of standard design

The defendant acted in a selected way, which caused the prevalence of the tort by using the principal actor. Two, the leading actor might have carried out so in pursuance of a joint plan or “common design”. There may be no mounted test for figuring out the unusual liability, and it differs as per the statistics and circumstances of the case.

Nature of Liability of Joint Tortfeasors 

1.  The liability’s nature is always for the plaintiff’s benefit, leading to the delivery of justice to the plaintiff.  

1. Plaintiffs can sue any one of the joint tortfeasors for the harm done to him or her. He or she can make all the tortfeasors accountable for all the damage incurred.

1. Though the defendants are liable to pay following the damages caused by them, it is at the plaintiff’s discretion to collect it from only one or both of them.

1. In the case of the release of tortfeasors, all the tortfeasors are released when one of them is released.

The purpose behind such a nature of liability is the “purpose of an action”. The reason for action in torts is constantly one and indivisible, that purpose of action results within the launch of all joint tortfeasors who had been held liable.

Moreover, the purpose of the events has no position to play within the release of the tortfeasors. Further, an insignificant agreement to no longer sue a specific perpetrator has a very one-of-a-kind perspective and may be a variable distinct from the discharge of the tortfeasors.

1.  Once a judgement is passed or obtained against one or all joint tortfeasors, it puts a bar on the plaintiff to further initiate any suit against one or all tortfeasors.

1. One loophole is involved in the liability of joint tortfeasors. It ends up with the defendant paying damages that are not proportional to the damage caused by him.

In the case of ‘Merryweather vs Nixon’, it was held that there could be no contribution among the joint tortfeasors. 

Exceptions to the Rule

1.  The rule of Merryweather is not applicable where there was negligence or unintentional breach of law. 
2. It is not applicable in case of indemnity.
3. It is not applicable where there is a right of contribution between the director and promoters of a company who are jointly liable for the misrepresentation in the prospectus.

But not it has been abolished by the Law Reform (Married Women and Tortfeasors Act) 1935-

• Now, the tortfeasor can recover contributions from others.
• The amount recovered must be equitable.
• It is in the court’s discretion to exempt a tortfeasor from the liability to contribute.

Conclusion

This article has covered various concepts of law related to joint tortfeasors.

It shows the reasonable use of tort law to serve justice in the public’s interest at large.

There have been modifications made to protect the rights of the plaintiff and the defendant, as can be seen in the case of Merryweather vs Nixon. The law of torts has been dynamic according to the needs of society.