Joint and Several Liability
50-state survey
CONTENTS
1Introduction
13Louisiana
2A Primer on Joint
and Several Liability
13Maine
5Overview of State Law
14Massachusetts
5Alabama
15Michigan
5Alaska
15Minnesota
6Arizona
16Mississippi
6Arkansas
16Missouri
7California
17Montana
24 South Carolina
7Colorado
17Nebraska
24 South Dakota
8Connecticut
18Nevada
25Tennessee
8Delaware
18 New Hampshire
25Texas
9Florida
19 New Jersey
9Georgia
19 New Mexico
10Hawaii
20 New York
10Idaho
20 North Carolina
11Illinois
21 North Dakota
11Indiana
21Ohio
27 West Virginia
12Iowa
22Oklahoma
28Wisconsin
12Kansas
22Oregon
28Wyoming
12Kentucky
23Pennsylvania
29 Offices & Affiliates
14Maryland
23 Rhode Island
26Utah
26Vermont
26Virginia
27Washington
Wilson Elser, a full-service and leading defense litigation law firm (www.wilsonelser.com), serves its clients with nearly 800 attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and one in London, and through a network
of affiliates in key regions globally. Founded in 1978, it ranks among the top 200 law firms identified by The American Lawyer and is included in the top 50 of The National Law Journal’s survey of the nation’s
largest law firms. Wilson Elser serves a growing, loyal base of clients with innovative thinking and an in-depth understanding of their respective businesses.
Wilson Elser makes this material available for general informational purposes only. The material is not intended to and does not constitute legal advice. Moreover, the material is not intended to and does not
constitute a solicitation for the formation of an attorney-client relationship and you should not act upon it without first seeking legal counsel. Wilson Elser reserves the right to correct, change or update this
material at any time without prior notice. Unsolicited emails and information sent to Wilson Elser do not create an attorney-client relationship with Wilson Elser, will not be considered confidential and may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy
Policy. Wilson Elser accepts clients only after completion of certain formal procedures.
Joint and Several Liability
The rule of “joint and several liability” makes each of multiple defendants liable
for the entirety of the plaintiff’s loss, regardless of each defendants’ degree of
fault. For example, a defendant who is only 5 percent at fault might end up
paying the entirety of the plaintiff’s damages – especially if the other defendants
are insolvent. Obviously, where the rule applies it can have a significant impact
on the parties’ assessment of the case.
In cases with multiple defendants, defendants must know
This 50-state overview of the doctrine of joint and several
whether “joint and several” liability applies. If it does, it might
liability provides the answer to these questions for each of
determine the decision to defend or settle a case. In evaluating
the U.S. states. As will be seen, while some states follow pure
cases with multiple defendants, to start, defendants are
versions of either the several-only or the joint and several
advised to learn the answer to the following key questions:
liability rules, most states have adopted a middle-of-the road
approach. States have hybrid liability rules (where joint and
1.Does “joint and several,” “several” or some modified
several liability applies to some portion of damages, such
liability rule apply?
as the economic loss, and several-only liability applies to
2.Is there a right to contribution among the defendants?
the rest) or variable rules (where the type of liability turns on
3.In case of a partial settlement, what becomes of the
some aspect of the plaintiff’s cause of action, such as joint
and several liability being triggered only for intentional and
remaining defendants’ liability?
environmental torts, or for a certain percentage of fault).
4.If the plaintiff is partially to blame for his own injuries,
what effect does that have on the defendants’ liability?
1
50-state survey
A Primer on Joint and Several Liability
The Concept of “Joint and Several Liability”
“Joint and several liability” allows a plaintiff to “sue for and
Contribution Among Jointly and
Severally Liable Tortfeasors
recover the full amount of recoverable damages from any
Jointly and severally liable defendants are generally (and
[defendant].” Restatement (Third) of Torts: Apportionment of
theoretically) entitled to recover from one another the
Liability § 10 (2000). In its pure form, the practical effect of this
percentage of damages attributable to the other’s conduct.
doctrine is that the plaintiff can recover the entire amount of
The reality, however, is that recovery by way of contribution can
damages from any of the jointly and severally liable tortfeasors,
be thwarted by a judgment-proof codefendant. Most often,
regardless of a particular defendant’s percentage share of fault.
this means a bankrupt party or one over whom jurisdiction
could not be had. Even where it is possible to collect from
Joint and several liability is meant to address the inequity that
the other party at fault, the process of doing so can have
flows from a responsible actor being unable to pay. In such
additional, sometimes significant, costs.
a case, someone – the plaintiff or another defendant – will
end up paying for the insolvent party’s share. States are left
The risk of third-party insolvency creates pressure for solvent
with having to decide where to shift the risk created by the
defendants (or those with higher policy limits) to settle – or
judgment-proof defendant. The choice of who (between the
else face the possibility of being held liable for the entirety of
remaining defendants and the plaintiff) will ultimately bear the
damages with no codefendant from which to recover. The right
risk is one of policy, which the states pursue according to their
to contribution works to deter undue pressure to settle, but it
own preferences. For states that choose to have defendants
is an imperfect remedy that does not completely eliminate the
bear this burden, joint and several liability is the preferred
harshness of joint and several liability for defendants.
option.
Variations on a Theme
Where the doctrine applies, the plaintiff is likely to search
for a financially viable (that is, well-insured) defendant with a
The Restatement (Third) of Torts discusses five different
sufficiently “deep pocket” to ensure full recovery.
approaches to dealing with multiple tortfeasors. Restatement
(Third) of Torts: Apportionment of Liability § 17, comment a
(2000). Each approach allocates the risk of insolvency of one or
The Test for Application of the Doctrine
more of the responsible tortfeasors differently.
Entities may be joint and several tortfeasors if they are liable
to the same person for the same harm. Notably, they need
The first two approaches systematically favor either defendants
not act at the same time or in any concerted way. Instead, the
or plaintiffs in cases involving the insolvency of one of the
measure of joint and several liability is whether the tortfeasors’
responsible actors. Pure joint and several liability places the
conduct produced an indivisible, single harm. For example,
risk of insolvency and the burden of identifying nonparty
where multiple contractors build a house and that house
tortfeasors on defendants. The second approach is pure several
collapses due to faulty construction, the contractors are “jointly
liability. This approach allocates the risk of insolvency entirely
and severally” liable. Similarly, where two or more drivers
to the plaintiff. Under pure several liability, the plaintiff may
negligently cause a collision in which a pedestrian is injured,
recover from each, severally liable, defendant only the portion
the drivers are “jointly and severally” liable.
of damages that are attributable to that defendant’s fault.
2
Joint and Several Liability
Because the wholesale risk-shifting of these two approaches
The model rule allows for reallocation of a defendant’s share
can lead to grossly unfair results, many states have adopted
of the judgment if the plaintiff is unable to collect from that
varied or hybrid versions of these allocation schemes. Some
defendant. Under the proposed rule, in such a circumstance
states attempt to alleviate the burden of insolvency through
the remaining defendants pay the portion of the uncollectable
reallocation of the insolvent party’s liability. Under this track,
amount that corresponds to their percentage of liability. A
joint and several liability applies to the solvent defendants but
party’s payment of an amount greater than its proportionate
the comparative share of any insolvent tortfeasor is spread out
share gives rise to the right to contribution.
among the remaining parties, sometimes the plaintiff included,
Under this scheme, the plaintiff’s contributing fault diminishes
in proportion to their share of the fault.
but does not bar the plaintiff’s right to recovery, provided that
Another approach splits the risk of insolvency between the
the plaintiff’s fault does not exceed that of the defendants.
plaintiff and the solvent defendants: It imposes joint and
With respect to partial settlement, the rule directs a pro rata
several liability on each tortfeasor whose share of the harm
reduction of the judgment against the non-settling defendants,
exceeds a certain percentage of fault. Those tortfeasors who
corresponding to the portion of the settling party’s share of
fall below the set threshold are severally liable. The rest are
the fault.
jointly and severally liable. The effectiveness of this approach
The Effect of Partial Settlement
turns on happenstance, not equity; however, because the more
tortfeasors there are, the more likely it is that each will have
Additional differences exist between the jurisdictions in their
a relatively small percentage of fault. Consequently, this rule
treatment of partial settlements; that is, cases where the
favors defendants when there are many of them and it favors
plaintiff reaches a settlement agreement with some, but not all,
plaintiffs when there are few tortfeasors.
of the defendants.
The last major variation is a hybrid one in which liability type
Jurisdictions tend to adopt either a pro rata or a pro tanto
is assigned based on the type of harm. Most commonly
method of apportionment of the settling defendant’s payment.
under this approach, joint and several liability is applied to
The different approaches lead to sharply different results and
the plaintiff’s economic loss and several liability is applied to
require different consideration by the defendants. As the
noneconomic damages. The underlying policy consideration
Eleventh Circuit explains:
here values compensation for the tangible, calculable
economic loss and permits the risk of insolvency to rest on the
Assume, for example, that the negligence of A and B
plaintiff for his intangible noneconomic losses.
combine to injure C, who then files a lawsuit against A and
B. On the morning of trial A settles with C for $50,000.
In addition to these variations, many states draw distinctions
The jury subsequently finds that A was 75% responsible
between damages based on the type of action in which they
and B was 25% responsible for the accident and that C’s
are sought. Contract actions are frequently treated differently
damages totaled $100,000. If neither party had settled,
from tort cases. In some states, distinctions are drawn between
judgment would be entered against A for $75,000 and
tort cases – while the risk of loss might be on the plaintiff
B for $25,000. But given A’s settlement for $50,000, how
in a negligence case, joint and several liability will apply for
much should B pay? Under a pro rata approach, B would
intentional torts or cases where the defendants act in concert.
receive a credit for 75% of C’s damages ($75,000) because
A, the settling joint tortfeasor, was 75% responsible for the
The Uniform Apportionment of Tort
Responsibility Act
accident. Thus, B would owe $25,000 ($100,000 - $75,000)
to C. Under the pro tanto approach, B would only receive
In 2003 the National Conference of Commissioners on
a credit for the dollar value of A’s settlement ($50,000).
Uniform Laws adopted the Uniform Apportionment of
Therefore, B would owe $50,000 ($100,000 - $50,000) to C.
Tort Responsibility Act. This model legislation calls for
Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Miller, 957 F.2d
apportionment of liability on the several-only model.
1575, 1579 (11th Cir. 1992)
Exceptions are recognized for parties acting in concert
and for those who fail to prevent another from causing
intentional harm.
3
50-state survey
The Pro Tanto Approach
Conclusion
The pro tanto rule reduces a non-settling defendant’s liability
The application of pure joint and several liability is on the
by the amount paid by a settling defendant. This approach
decline between the various jurisdictions. In most jurisdictions,
allows for gamesmanship between the plaintiff and a favored
the pure form of the doctrine has given way to modified
tortfeasor since the plaintiff can settle with one party (for
versions, including those that take into account the plaintiff’s
enough, for example, to finance the rest of the litigation) and
comparative fault. Some states have adopted approaches that
rest assured that he will collect the remainder from others if
protect, at least to some degree, the unfairness that might
the verdict is in his favor. To prevent such outcomes, some
otherwise befall “deep pocket” defendants who become
jurisdictions require a hearing on culpability and a showing of
targets simply because they have the means to satisfy a
good faith before settlements are approved.
judgment. Regardless of these shifts, however, states remain
mindful of the need to continue to ensure the ultimate goal
The Pro Rata Approaches
of the joint and several liability doctrine: an innocent plaintiff’s
recovery.
A pure pro rata rule divides liability equally among defendants.
If there are three liable defendants, each becomes responsible
for one third of the plaintiff’s damages, regardless of how much
they actually contributed to the loss. A modified pro rata or
proportional approach is more common, however. Under this
approach, liability between defendants is apportioned based
on their relative degree of fault as determined by a jury. This
apportionment then governs each defendant’s liability to the
plaintiff.
Under either approach, if the plaintiff reaches a settlement with
some but not all defendants, the plaintiff’s damages award
is reduced by the settling defendants’ share of the fault. The
non-settling defendants pay their own shares. If a defendant
settles and it turns out the settlement is less than its share
of liability would have been, the plaintiff may not collect the
additional money from the other, non-settling defendants.
Conversely, if a defendant pays more in settlement than it
would have after verdict, it is barred from seeking contribution
from the non-settling tortfeasors.
4
Joint and Several Liability
Overview of State Law
Alabama
Pure Joint and Several Liability
Alabama applies the doctrine of pure joint and several
Where there has been a settlement with some but not all
liability. Keibler-Thompson Corp. v. Steading, 907 So.2d
defendants, Alabama applies the pro tanto approach and
435 (Ala. 2005). The state does not provide for fault-based
offsets the remaining defendants’ liability by the settlement
apportionment between tortfeasors. Ex parte Goldsen, 783
amount. Ex parte Barnett, 978 So.2d 729 (Ala. 2007).
So.2d 53 (Ala. 2000). Tortfeasors who pay more than their
proportionate share are entitled to contribution. Hardy v.
McMullan, 612 So.2d 1146 (Ala. 1992).
Where the plaintiff’s claims are for negligence (not, for
example, wanton conduct), any negligence by the plaintiff
defeats his entitlement to recover damages. Otherwise, the
plaintiff’s damages are reduced by his portion of the fault. John
R. Cowley & Bros., Inc. v. Brown, 569 So.2d 375 (Ala. 1990).
Alaska
Pure Several Liability
Alaska has adopted several liability and permits the plaintiff to
Alaska has a proportionate offset rule for partial settlements.
recover from each defendant only that defendant’s share of the
Under this rule, a non-settling defendant’s share of the
fault. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.080 (1989); Asher v. Alkan Shelter,
damages is offset by the payment made by the settling
LLC, 212 P.3d 772 (Ak. 2009). The plaintiff’s total damages are
defendants in the same ratio as the settling and non-settling
offset by his share of the fault. Alaska Stat. § 09.17.080 (1989);
defendants’ relative degree of fault. [stat]; Diggins v. Jackson,
Joseph v. State, 26 P.3d 459 (Ak. 2001).
164 P.3d 647, 648 (Ak. 2007).
There is no statutory right to contribution between Alaska’s
severally liable tortfeasors but a common-law right to
contribution is available against non-parties. Alaska Stat.
§ 09.17.080 (1989); McLaughlin v. Lougee, 137 P.3d 267
(Ak. 2006).
5
50-state survey
Arizona
Variable Liability
For most torts, Arizona tortfeasors are severally and not jointly
Tortfeasors have a right to contribution only where joint and
liable. Ariz. Stat. § 12-2506(A) (1984); State Farm Ins. v. Premier
several liability applies. Ariz. Stat. § 12-2501 (1993); Dietz v.
Manufactured Sys., 172 P.3d 410 (Ariz. 2007). The plaintiff’s
General Electric Co., 821 P.2d 166 (Ariz. 1991). When partial
negligence is taken into account and his entitlement is reduced
settlements are had, unless the case is one of joint and several
by his share of the fault. Ariz. Stat. § 12-2505 (1984); Gunnell v.
liability, the non-settling tortfeasor is not entitled to a setoff.
Ariz. Public Service Co., 46 P.3d 399 (Ariz. 2002).
Gemstar Ltd. v. Ernst & Young, 185 Ariz. 493 (Ariz. 1996).
There are some notable exceptions to Arizona’s several
liability rule. Joint and several liability remains the rule in cases
where vicarious liability applies; where the tortfeasors acted
in concert; for actions brought under the Federal Employers’
Liability Act, which addresses compensation of injured
railroad workers; and for waste disposal cases. Ariz. Stat. §
12-2506 (1984); Yslava v. Hughes Aircraft Co., 936 P.2d 1274
(Ariz. 1997).
Arkansas
Pure Several Liability
Arkansas defendants are severally – and not jointly – liable.
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling tortfeasors
Ark. Code § 16-55-201 (2003). Assessment is made against
remain liable for their proportionate share of the plaintiff’s
the plaintiff if he is also at fault, and the plaintiff’s recovery
damages. Scalf v. Payne, 583 S.W.2d 51 (Ark. 1979).
is barred if he is more than 50 percent at fault. Ark. Code §
16-55-216 (2003); Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 308
S.W.3d 135 (Ark. 2009). Arkansas permits courts to compensate
for any portion of the plaintiff’s damages that are deemed
“uncollectable” by increasing, within limits, the solvent
defendants’ share of liability. Ark. Code § 16-55-203 (2003).
The statute gives a defendant whose share has been increased
the right to seek contribution from the defendants who are
thought to be judgment-proof. Ark. Code § 16-55-203 (2003).
6
Joint and Several Liability
California
HYBRID AND VARIABLE LIABILITY
In California, a modified approach to joint and several
of partial settlements, the non-settling defendants are entitled
liability is in place. In any action for personal injury, property
to a setoff of any judgment for which they are jointly and
damage, or wrongful death, tortfeasors are held jointly and
severally liable. Goodman v. Lozano, 223 P.3d 77 (Cal. 2010).
severally liable for economic damages and severally only for
For noneconomic damages where each defendant is liable only
noneconomic damages. Cal. Civ. Code §1431 and 1431.2
for its proportionate share, partial settlement does not affect
(1986); Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 753 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1988).
the remaining defendants’ liability. Buttram v. Owens-Corning
The defendants’ liability is offset by the plaintiff’s comparative
Fiberglas Corp., 941 P.2d 71 (Cal. 1997).
fault. Diaz v. Carcamo, 253 P.3d 535, 540 (Cal. 2011). In cases
Colorado
VARIABLE LIABILITY
In nearly all Colorado actions, a rule of several (and not joint)
In cases where joint and several liability applies, the defendants
liability applies. Colo. Stat. § 13-21-111.5 (1987); Vickery v.
are entitled to contribution from one another for any portion
Evans, 266 P.3d 390 (Colo. 2011). An exception is in place
of the damages they pay that is beyond their own share. Colo.
for defendants who act in concert. Colo. Stat. § 13-21-
Stat. § 13-50.5-102 (1989); Fibreboard Corp. v. Fenton, 845
111.5 (1987); Resolution Trust Corp. v. Heiserman, 898 P.2d
P.2d 1168 (Colo. 1993).
1049 (Colo. 1995).
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling defendants
In Colorado, the defendants’ liability is offset for the plaintiff’s
are entitled to a setoff against the entirety of damages by the
comparative negligence. Colo. Stat. § 13-21-111 (1987);
pro rata share of the settling tortfeasors’ liability. Colo. Stat. §
Kussman v. Denver, 706 P.2d 776 (Colo. 1985). Further, where
13-50.5-105 (1986); Smith v. Zufelt, 880 P.2d 1178 (Colo. 1994).
the plaintiff’s action contributed to his own damages to a
greater degree than the defendants’ combined negligence,
recovery is barred altogether. B.G.’s, Inc. v. Gross, 23 P.3d 691
(Colo. 2001).
Where the damages are punitive, there is no offset for the
plaintiff’s comparative share of the fault. Union Pacific Railroad
Co. v. Martin, 209 P.3d 185 (Colo. 2009).
7
50-state survey
Connecticut
Variable Liability
Connecticut defendants in negligence cases are subject to
Where the plaintiff’s negligence is an issue, the plaintiff
several-only liability. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h (1986); Collins v.
may recover only if his negligence is not greater than the
Colonial Penn Ins. Co., 778 A.2d 899 (Conn. 2001). Joint and
defendants’ combined share of the fault. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h
several liability remains the rule for actions that do not sound
(1986); Juchniewicz v. Bridgeport Hosp., 914 A.2d 511 (Conn.
in negligence. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h (1986); Allard v. Liberty
2007). Where this is true, the plaintiff’s recovery is still reduced
Oil Equip. Co. Inc., 756 A.2d 237 (Conn. 2000). Where the
by the percentage of his negligence. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h;
plaintiff is unable to collect from a defendant, however, the
Fleming v. Garnett, 646 A.2d 1308 (Conn. 1994).
uncollectable portion of his damages may be reapportioned
In case of a settlement with fewer than all defendants,
among the remaining defendants in the same proportion as
the judgment is reduced by the proportion of the settling
their share of liability. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h (1986); Babes
defendants’ fault. Conn. Stat. § 52-572h (1986); Carlson v.
v. Bennett, 721 A.2d 511 (Conn. 1998). In case of such
Waterbury Hosp., 905 A.2d 654 (Conn. 2006).
reapportionment, the right of contribution exists. Conn. Stat. §
52-572h (1986).
Delaware
Pure Joint and Several Liability
In Delaware, joint and several liability applies, so a plaintiff may
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling tortfeasor’s
recover the entirety of his damages from any one of multiple
liability is reduced by the amount of the settlement or by what
tortfeasors. 10 Del. Code § 6301 (1953); Blackshear v. Clark,
would have been the settling tortfeasor’s pro rata share of the
391 A.2d 747 (Del. 1978). The joint and several tortfeasors
judgment, whichever is greater. 10 Del. Code § 6304 (1953);
have a right of contribution against each other. 10 Del. Code
Medical Center v. Mullins, 637 A.2d 6 (Del. 1994).
§ 6302 (1953); Reddy v. PMA Insurance Co., 20 A.3d 1281
(Del. 2011).
Where a Delaware plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault for
his own injuries and where the defendants’ conduct was plain
negligence (rather than recklessness), the plaintiff’s recovery
is barred. Brittingham v. Layfield, 962 A.2d 916 (Del. 2008).
Where the plaintiff bears no more than 50 percent of the fault,
his recoverable damages are limited proportionately.
8
Joint and Several Liability
Florida
Variable Liability
Florida repealed the doctrine of joint and several liability
Where the plaintiff settles with some (but not all) defendants,
in negligence cases and replaced it with a system of pure
the settling tortfeasor waives its right to contribution. Fla. Stat.
comparative fault. Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (2006); Merrill Crossings
§ 768.31 (2006). The remaining tortfeasors are entitled to a
Assocs. v. McDonald, 705 So.2d 560 (Fla. 1997). The pure
setoff for the settlement amount; however, for noneconomic
several liability rule does not apply to a host of actions,
damages this right is triggered only if the settling defendant
including those concerning environmental torts, intentional
is assessed some portion of the fault. D’Angelo v. Fitzmaurice,
torts and transactions in securities. Fla. Stat. § 768.81 (2006);
863 So.2d 311 (Fla. 2003).
Smith v. Department of Ins., 507 So.2d 1080 (Fla. 1987).
Any fault of the plaintiff proportionally diminishes the amount
that he is entitled to recover. Fla. Stat. § 768.81(2) (2011); Am.
Home Assur. Co. v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 908 So.2d 459
(Fla. 2005).
Georgia
Pure Several Liability
Liability is purely several in Georgia. Ga. Code § 51-12-33(b)
There is no right to contribution between the codefendants,
(1987); Cavalier Convenience, Inc. v. Sarvis, 699 S.E.2d 104
as each is liable only for its proportionate share. Ga. Code §
(Ga. 2010). Where the plaintiff contributed to his own loss but
51-12-33 (2005); McReynolds v. Krebs, 725 S.E.2d 584 (Ga.
the plaintiff’s fault accounts for less than 50 percent of the fault,
2012). Any settling tortfeasors’ fault is considered in assessing
total liability is reduced by the plaintiff’s share. Ga. Code §
the non-settling tortfeasors’ portion of fault, but no setoff is
51-12-33 (2005); Merry v. Robinson, 313 Ga. App. 321 (Ga. Ct.
permitted for the settlement amount. McReynolds v. Krebs,
App. 2011). Where the plaintiff’s share of the fault is more than
725 S.E.2d 584 (Ga. 2012).
50 percent, the plaintiff may not recover. Ga. Code § 51-12-33
(2005); Bailey v. Annistown Rd. Baptist Church, 301 Ga. App.
677 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009).
9
50-state survey
Hawaii
Hybrid and Variable Liability
Hawaii replaced joint and several liability with several-only
A plaintiff who contributed to his own injuries may recover for
liability but it did so with significant exceptions and limitations.
his loss, less the pro rata share that is his own fault, provided
Haw. Stat. § 663-10.9 (1999); Taylor-Rice v. State, 94 P.3d 659
that his fault does not outweigh the defendants’ cumulative
(Haw. 2004). Joint and several liability remains the rule for
share of fault. Haw. Stat. § 663-31 (1984); Steigman v.
noneconomic damages in personal injury cases, all damages
Outrigger Enterprises, 267 P.3d 1238 (Haw. 2011). Where the
in intentional tort cases, strict liability cases, environmental
plaintiff’s fault is greater than the defendants’ fault, however,
damage cases and lawsuits having to do with the maintenance
the plaintiff may not recover. Haw. Stat. § 663-31 (1984); Ozaki
of highways. Haw. Stat. § 663-10.9 (1999); Kienker v. Bauer,
v. Ass’n of Apartment Owners of Discovery Bay, 954 P.2d 644
129 P.3d 1125 (Haw. 2006). In cases where one of these
(Haw. 1998).
exceptions applies, joint and several liability is the rule, and
Where there is a partial settlement, there is also a right to
tortfeasors are entitled to contribution from one another for
a setoff, in the amount of the settlement, against any sums
any payment they made beyond their proportionate share.
payable to the plaintiff by any remaining joint tortfeasors.
Haw. Stat. § 663-12 (1984); Gump v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 5
Haw. Stat. § 663-15.5 (2001); Troyer v. Adams, 77 P.3d 83
P.3d 407 (Haw. 2000).
(Haw. 2003).
Idaho
Variable Liability
Idaho abolished the common-law doctrine of joint and several
Partial settlement by a jointly and severally liable tortfeasor
liability for all cases except those involving defendants acting
reduces the remaining tortfeasors’ liability by the settlement
in concert and cases where liability is vicarious. Idaho Code §
amount. Idaho Code § 6-805 (1991); Quick v. Crane, 727 P.2d
6-803 (1971); Jones v. HealthSouth Treasure Valley Hosp., 206
1187 (Idaho 1986). Where the defendants are only jointly (and
P.3d 473 (Idaho 2009). Tortfeasors have a right to contribution
not severally) liable, partial settlement has no effect on the
from each other for any payment beyond their proportionate
remaining defendants’ liability. Idaho Code § 6-805 (1991);
share, provided that joint and several liability applies. Idaho
Tuttle v. Wayment Farms, 952 P.2d 1241 (Idaho 1998).
Code § 6-803 (1971); Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., 141 P.3d 1099
(Idaho 2006).
Where the plaintiff is 50 percent or more at fault, he may not
recover. Idaho Code § 6-801 (1971); Ross v. Coleman Co.,
141 P.3d 1099 (Idaho 1988). Where the plaintiff is at fault to
some degree that is less than 50 percent, he may recover his
damages less the percentage that is attributable to his own
actions. Idaho Code § 6-801 (1971); Salinas v. Vierstra, 695 P.2d
369 (Idaho 1985).
10
Joint and Several Liability
Illinois
Variable Liability
Illinois defendants are jointly and severally liable for damages.
Damages are discounted by the plaintiff’s comparative
735 Il. Comp. Stat. 5/ 2-1117 (1995); Miller v. Rosenberg,
negligence. 735 Il. Comp. Stat. 5/ 2-1116 (1995); Coney
749 N.E.2d 946 (Ill. 2001). The exception to this rule is for
v. J.L.G. Industries, 454 N.E.2d 197 (Ill. 1983). Where the
defendants who bear less than a quarter of the plaintiff’s
plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault, however, he may not
own liability. With some exclusions (such as for medical
recover at all. 735 Il. Comp. Stat. 5/ 2-1116 (1995); Burke v. 12
malpractice cases) these defendants remain liable jointly
Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, 593 N.E.2d 522 (Ill. 1992).
and severally for plaintiff’s medical and related expenses but
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling tortfeasors’
are only severally liable for the remainder of the plaintiff’s
liability is reduced by the amount of the settlement. 740 Il.
damages. 735 Il. Comp. Stat. 5/ 2-1117 (1995); Unzicker v.
Comp. Stat. 100/ 2 (1987); Board of Trustees v. Coopers &
Kraft Food Ingredients Corp., 783 N.E.2d 1024 (Ill. 2002).
Lybrand, 803 N.E.2d 460 (Ill. 2003).
The right of contribution exists among jointly and severally
liable tortfeasors. 740 Il. Comp. Stat. 100/ 2 (1987); People v.
Brockman, 574 N.E.2d 626 (Ill. 1991).
Indiana
Variable Liability
Under Indiana’s Comparative Fault Act, defendants are
In addition, a settlement between plaintiff and one defendant
severally liable for damages unless the action sounds in
does not have an effect on the other tortfeasors. Should the
medical malpractice. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8 (1985); Control
settlement amount be greater than the settling defendant’s
Techniques, Inc. v. Johnson, 762 N.E.2d 104 (Ind. 2002).
liability, the windfall (or, conversely, the loss) is the plaintiff’s;
non-settling defendants do not receive a “credit” for another’s
If the plaintiff is more than 50 percent at fault, he is barred
settlement. R.L. McCoy v. Jack, 772 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. 2002).
from recovering damages. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-8 (1985); TRW
Vehicle Safety Sys. v. Moore, 936 N.E.2d 201 (Ind. 2010).
Otherwise, damages are reduced pro rata by the plaintiff’s
percentage of fault. Ind. Code § 34-51-2-5 (1985); Green v.
Ford Motor Co., 942 N.E.2d 791 (Ind. 2011).
Where each party is liable only for their percentage of fault,
there is no right of contribution among Indiana tortfeasors. Ind.
Code § 34-51-2-12 (1998); Simon v. United States, 805 N.E.2d
798 (Ind. 2004).
11
50-state survey
Iowa
Hybrid and Variable Liability
In Iowa, joint and several liability applies but only to defendants
In all cases, the defendants’ liability is offset by the plaintiff’s
who are 50 percent or more at fault and only with respect to
share of negligence. Iowa Code § 668.3 (1984); Mulhern v.
the plaintiff’s economic damages. Iowa Code § 668.4 (1984);
Catholic Health Initiatives, 799 N.W.2d 104 (Iowa 2011). In no
Estes v. Progressive Classic Ins., 809 N.W.2d 111 (Iowa 2012).
event may the plaintiff recover if he is more than 50 percent
Where liability is joint and several, a defendant paying more
at fault. Iowa Code § 668.3 (1984); Franklin v. Andrews, 595
than its proportionate share is entitled to contribution from the
N.W.2d 488 (Iowa 1999).
other defendants. Iowa Code § 668.5 (1984); Wilson v. Farm
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling tortfeasors’
Bureau Mut. Ins., 770 N.W.2d 324 (Iowa 2009).
liability is reduced by the settling defendants’ percentage share
of liability. Iowa Code § 668.7 (1984); Thomas v. Solberg, 442
N.W.2d 73 (Iowa 1989).
Kansas
Pure Several Liability
In Kansas, each party found liable is responsible to pay only its
The defendants’ liability is offset by the plaintiff’s share of
portion of the awarded damages. Kan. Stat. § 60-258a (1974);
the fault. Kan. Stat. § 60-258a (1974); Gaulden v. Burlington
Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867, 874 (Kan. 1978). Since defendants
Northern, Inc., 654 P.2d 383 (Kan. 1982). Where the plaintiff’s
do not pay another’s share of the damages, there is no right
negligence is of equal or greater proportion than the
of contribution between them. Mathis v. TG&Y, 751 P.2d 136
defendants’ negligence, however, the plaintiff may not recover
(Kan. 1988). For the same reason, a partial settlement has no
at all. Kan. Stat. § 60-258a (1974); Wilson v. Kansas Power &
effect on the liability of the remaining tortfeasors. Dodge City
Light Co., 657 P.2d 546 (Kan. 1983).
Implement, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 205 P.3d
1265 (Kan. 2009).
Kentucky
Pure Several Liability
Kentucky has also replaced joint and several liability with
The plaintiff’s negligence is considered in fault allocation under
several-only liability. Ky. Stat. § 411.182 (1988); Degener v. Hall
the Kentucky statutory scheme: the defendants’ liability is
Contracting, 27 S.W.3d 775 (Ky. 2000). The right of contribution
reduced by the plaintiff’s share of the fault. Ky. Stat. § 411.182
between codefendants was extinguished with joint and several
(1988); Koching v. International Armament Corp., 772 S.W.2d
liability. Dix & Assocs. Pipeline Contractors v. Key, 799 S.W.2d
634 (Ky. 1989). Any settling defendants’ share is similarly
24 (Ky. 1990).
considered and used to reduce the remaining defendants’
liability. Ky. Stat. § 411.182 (1988); Owens Corning Fiberglass
Corp. v. Parrish, 58 S.W.3d 467 (Ky. 2001).
12
Joint and Several Liability
Louisiana
Variable Liability
Louisiana defendants are generally severally liable. La. Code
Regardless of the type of liability, all Louisiana defendants are
Art. 2324 (1979); Johnson v. Morehouse Gen. Hosp., 63 So.3d
entitled to a setoff for the percentage share of fault of any
87 (La. 2011). There is no right to contribution among severally
settled party. Farbe v. Casualty Reciprocal Exch., 765 So.2d
liable defendants as each is liable to pay only its share of the
994 (La. 2000).
plaintiff’s damages. Cole v. Celotex Corp., 599 So.2d 1058
(La. 1992).
Defendants who are found to have conspired to commit an
intentional tort, however, are jointly and severally liable to the
plaintiff. La. Code Art. 2324 (1979); Ross v. Conoco, Inc., 828
So.2d 546 (La. 2002). Further, while severally liable defendants’
liability is offset by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault, this
setoff is unavailable to those defendants who are liable for an
intentional tort. La. Code Art. 2323 (1979); Landry v. Bellanger,
851 So.2d 943 (La. 2003).
Maine
Pure Joint and Several Liability
In Maine, all defendants are jointly and severally liable to
If a partial settlement is reached, the amount of that settlement
the plaintiff for the full amount of a judgment. 14 Ma. Stat. §
is deducted from the plaintiff’s judgment as against the
156 (1965); Peerless Div. v. United States Special Hydraulic
remaining defendants. Me. Stat. § 163 (1965); Hoitt v. Hall, 661
Cylinders Corp., 742 A.2d 906 (Me. 1999). The right of
A.2d 669 (Me. 1995).
contribution exists among these jointly and severally liable
tortfeasors. Peerless Ins. Co. v. Progressive Ins. Co., 822 A.2d
1125 (Me. 2003).
The defendants’ liability for damages is reduced by any
negligence attributable to the plaintiff. 14 Ma. Stat. § 156
(1965); Austin v. Raybestos-Manhattan, 471 A.2d 280 (Me.
1984). Where the plaintiff is as much at fault as the defendants,
however, the plaintiff may not recover at all. 14 Ma. Stat. § 156
(1965); Amica Mut. Ins. Co. v. Estate of Pecci, 953 A.2d 369
(Me. 2008).
13
50-state survey
Maryland
Pure Joint and Several Liability
In tort cases, Maryland follows the doctrine of pure joint and
In a partial settlement, the judgment against non-settling
several liability. Md. Code § 3-1401 (1973); Owens-Illinois,
tortfeasors is reduced by the amount of the settlement. Md.
Inc. v. Cook, 872 A.2d 969 (Md. 2005). There is a right to
Code § 3-1404 (1973); Scapa Dryer Fabrics v. Saville, 16 A.3d
contribution among joint tortfeasors for amounts paid beyond
159 (Md. 2011).
their proportionate share of the judgment. Md. Code § 3-1402
(1973); Parler & Wobber v. Miles & Stockbridge, 756 A.2d 526
(Md. 2000).
Significantly, a Maryland plaintiff who contributes to his own
injuries is barred from all recovery. Harrison v. Montgomery
County Bd. of Ed., 456 A.2d 894 (Md. 1983). The exception
to this rule lies in strict liability cases, in which a plaintiff who
contributes to his own injuries may still recover his damages.
Ellsworth v. Sherne Lingerie, 495 A.2d 348 (Md. 1985).
Massachusetts
Pure Joint and Several Liability
Massachusetts tort defendants are jointly and severally liable.
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling tortfeasors’
Ann. L. Mass. Ch. 231B, § 1 (1962); O’Connor v. Raymark
liability is reduced by the settlement amount. Ann. L. Mass. Ch.
Industries, 518 N.E.2d 510 (Mass. 1988). Defendants’ share of
231B, § 4 (1962); Boston Edison Co. v. Tritsch, 346 N.E.2d 901
liability is divided equally, regardless of their degree of fault.
(Mass. 1976).
Ann. L. Mass. Ch. 231B, § 1 (1962); Zeller v. Cantu, 478 N.E.2d
930 (Mass. 1985). If they pay more than their share, they are
entitled to contribution from defendants who paid less. Ann.
L. Mass. Ch. 231B, § 1 (1962); Shantigar Found. v. Bear Mt.
Builders, 804 N.E.2d 324 (Mass. 2004).
The plaintiff’s comparative negligence reduces the defendants’
liability. Ann. L. Mass. Ch. 231, § 85 (1973); Mirageas v.
Massachusetts Bay Transp. Authority, 465 N.E.2d 232 (Mass.
1984). Where the plaintiff’s relative degree of fault is greater
than the defendants’ relative degree of fault, the plaintiff
may not recover at all. Ann. L. Mass. Ch. 231, § 85 (1973);
DeSanctis v. Lynn Water & Sewer Comm’n, 666 N.E.2d 1292
(Mass. 1996).
14
Joint and Several Liability
Michigan
Variable Liability
Generally, any Michigan tort defendant is severally liable for
The right to contribution among joint tortfeasors exists. Gerling
damages attributed to its percentage of fault. Mich. Comp. L.
Konzern Allgemeine Versicherungs AG v. Lawson, 693 N.W.2d
§ 600.6304 (1995); Romain v. Frankenmuth Mutual. Ins., 762
149 (Mich. 2005).
N.W.2d 911 (Mich. 2009). Significant exceptions exist, however;
When a partial settlement is reached in cases where joint and
most notably, joint and several liability remains the rule in
several liability is the rule, the non-settling defendants’ liability
medical malpractice actions. Mich. Comp. L. § 600.6304 (1995);
is offset by the amount of the settlement. Kaiser v. Allen, 693
Driver v. Naini, 802 N.W.2d 311 (Mich. 2011).
N.W.2d 149 (Mich. 2008).
If the plaintiff is partially at fault in his resulting damages, then
his recovery is limited to exclude the portion of his loss that is
attributable to him. Mich. Comp. L. § 600.6304 (1995); Craig v.
Larson, 439 N.W.2d 899 (Mich. 1989).
Minnesota
Variable Liability
Minnesota largely follows the several-only liability model.
Where there is a partial settlement, the settlement amount is
Minn. Stat. § 604.02 (2003); Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813
deducted from the jury’s award after apportionment, so that
N.W.2d 68 (Minn. 2012). Joint and several liability remains the
only in cases of joint and several liability does the non-settling
rule, however, for defendants who are more than 50 percent at
tortfeasor benefit from the settlement of another party. Minn.
fault, where there is collusion among the defendants, and for
Stat. § 604.01 (2003); Rambaum v. Swisher, 435 N.W.2d 19
intentional and environmental tort cases. Minn. Stat. § 604.02
(Minn. 1989).
(2003); Staab v. Diocese of St. Cloud, 813 N.W.2d 68 (Minn.
2012). In cases of joint and several liability, any defendant
that pays more than its proportionate share is entitled to
contribution. Tolbert v. Gerber Indus., Inc., 255 N.W.2d 362
(Minn. 1977).
Where the plaintiff is at fault and his fault is less than the
defendants’ fault, the defendants’ liability is reduced
proportionately. Minn. Stat. § 604.02 (2003); Moorhead
Economic Development Authority v. Anda, 789 N.W.2d 860
(Minn. 2010).
15
50-state survey
Mississippi
Variable Liability
Mississippi generally follows the doctrine of several liability.
Negligence by the plaintiff does not bar recovery but it does
Miss. Code § 85-5-7 (1989); City of Ellisville v. Richardson, 913
diminish the amount of damages by the proportion of the
So.2d 973 (Miss. 2005). However, defendants are jointly and
plaintiff’s fault. Miss. Code § 11-7-15 (1911); Coho Resources,
severally liable if they act on a common plan. Miss. Code §
Inc. v. Chapman, 913 So.2d 899 (Miss. 2005).
85-5-7 (1989); J. B. Hunt Transport v. Forrest General Hosp.,
In case of a partial settlement, the settlement amount is
34 So.3d 1171 (Miss. 2010). When joint and several liability
deducted from the plaintiff’s award prior to apportionment.
applies, defendants paying more than their proportionate
Mack Trucks, Inc. v. Tackett, 841 So.2d 1107 (Miss. 2003).
share are entitled to contribution. Miss. Code § 85-5-7 (1989);
DePriest v. Barber, 798 So.2d 456 (Miss. 2001).
Missouri
Variable Liability
In Missouri, joint and several liability applies only to defendants
The plaintiff’s negligence, if any, reduces the defendants’
who are 51 percent or more at fault; are employees of
liability by the degree of the plaintiff’s fault. Gustafson v.
another party’or are liable by operation of the Federal
Benda, 661 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1983).
Employers Liability Act. Mo. Stat. § 537.067 (2005). For all
If the plaintiff settles with some but not all defendants, the right
other defendants, Missouri applies several liability. Mo. Stat.
to contribution is extinguished and the judgment against the
§ 537.067 (2005); Burg v. Dampier, 346 S.W.3d 343 (Mo. Ct.
remaining defendants is offset by the settlement amount. Mo.
App. W. Dist. Div. 2 2011).
Stat. § 537.060 (1939); Fast v. Marston, 282 S.W.3d 346 (Mo.
2009).
Where joint and several liability applies, defendants
paying more than their proportionate share are entitled to
contribution. Mo. Stat. § 537.060 (1939); Missouri Pacific
Railroad Co. v. Whitehead & Kales Co., 566 S.W.2d 466
(Mo. 1978).
16
Joint and Several Liability
Montana
Variable Liability
Montana follows the rule of joint and several liability for
The plaintiff’s negligence, provided it is less than the
defendants who are most at fault. Mont. Code § 27-1-703
defendants’ share of the fault, proportionately diminishes his
(1979); Deere & Co. v. District Court, 730 P.2d 396 (Mont.
right to recovery. Mont. Code § 27-1-70 (1987). Otherwise,
1986). Liability is several only for defendants whose negligence
the plaintiff may not recover. Payne v. Knutson, 99 P.3d 200
is 50 percent or less, provided they did not act in concert with
(Mont. 2004).
others. Mont. Code § 27-1-703 (1979); Newville v. Department
In case of a partial settlement, the right to contribution is
of Family Services, 883 P.2d 793 (Mont. 1994). There is a right
extinguished and the remaining defendants’ liability is reduced,
to contribution from another defendant where a party pays
using the pro tanto approach, by the amount of the settlement.
more than its proportionate share of the plaintiff’s damages.
Hulstine v. Lennox Indus., 237 P.3d 1277 (Mont. 2010).
Mont. Code § 27-1-703 (1979); Consolidated Freightways v.
Osier, 605 P.2d 1076 (Mont. 1979).
Nebraska
Hybrid and Variable Liability
Generally, for economic damages, Nebraska defendants
Only where the plaintiff’s negligence is less than 50
face joint and several liability. Neb. Stat. § 25-21,185.10
percent may a plaintiff recover. In these cases, the plaintiff’s
(1992); Haag v. Bongers, 589 N.W.2d 318 (Neb. 1999). For
comparative negligence proportionally diminishes the amount
noneconomic damages, liability is several only. Neb. Stat. §
to which the plaintiff is entitled. Neb. Stat. § 25-21,185.09
25-21,185.10 (1992); Maxwell v. Montey, 631 N.W.2d 455
(1992); Shipler v. General Motors, 710 N.W.2d 807 (Neb. 2006).
(Neb. 2001). An exception exists for defendants acting in
If the plaintiff settles with some, but not all, defendants,
concert with each other: their liability is joint and several
the judgment for the remaining jointly and severally liable
regardless of the type of damages. Neb. Stat. § 25-21,185.10
defendants is reduced by the pro rata share of the settled
(1992). The right to contribution exists for jointly and severally
party. Neb. Stat. § 25-21,185.11 (1992); Tadros v. City of
liable parties that pay more than their share. Estate of Powell
Omaha, 735 N.W.2d 377 (Neb. 2007).
ex rel. Powell v. Montange, 765 N.W.2d 496 (Neb. 2009).
17
50-state survey
Nevada
Variable Liability
In most cases, Nevada defendants’ liability is several only.
A comparatively negligent plaintiff may recover the portion of
Nev. Stat. § 41.141 (1973); Buck v. Greyhound Lines, 783 P.2d
his damages that is not attributable to his own fault, provided
437 (Nev. 1989). Significant exceptions exist, however. Joint
that his negligence is less than the combined negligence of the
and several liability remains the rule for cases involving strict
defendants. Nev. Stat. § 41.141 (1973); Cromer v. Wilson, 225
liability, environmental torts and cases where the defendants
P.3d 788 (Nev. 2010).
act in concert. Nev. Stat. § 41.141 (1973); GES, Inc. v. Corbitt,
If a defendant settles with the plaintiff, the plaintiff’s recovery
21 P.3d 11 (Nev. 2001). Should a jointly and severally liable
from the other defendants is reduced by the amount of the
defendant pay more than its proportionate share, it generally
settlement and the right to contribution is extinguished. Nev.
has a right to contribution from codefendants. Nev. Stat. §
Stat. § 41.141 (1973); Nev. Stat. § 17.245 (1973); Banks v.
17.225 (1973); Van Cleave v. Gamboni Constrution, 706 P.2d
Sunrise Hosp., 102 P.3d 52 (Nev. 2004).
845 (Nev. 1985). There is no right to contribution, however, in
cases involving intentional torts. Nev. Stat. § 17.255 (1973);
Evans v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Inc., 5 P.3d 1043 (Nev. 2000).
New Hampshire
Variable Liability
New Hampshire applies joint and several liability to defendants
Fault by the plaintiff does not bar his recovery provided that
who are 50 percent or more at fault, but applies several-only
it is not greater than the defendants’ fault, but the plaintiff’s
liability for defendants whose fault is less than 50 percent.
damages are reduced by the portion of the fault attributed
N.H. Stat. § 507:7-e (1997); Rodgers v. Colby’s Ol’ Place, 802
to the plaintiff. N.H. Stat. § 507:7-d (1997); Ocasio v. Federal
A.2d 1159 (N.H. 2002). Liability is joint and several, however,
Express, 33 A.3d 1139 (N.H. 2011).
regardless of the parties’ percentage of fault if the defendants
If the plaintiff settles with some but not all tortfeasors in a
acted in concert. N.H. Stat. § 507:7-e (1997); Gouldreault v.
case where the remaining defendants’ liability is joint and
Kleeman, 965 A.2d 1040 (N.H. 2009).
several, the settlement amount is deducted from the total
A defendant who pays more than its proportionate share
damages award. Otherwise, the remaining defendants pay
is entitled to contribution. N.H. Stat. § 507:7-e (1997); Pike
their proportionate share of the judgment, irrespective of the
Industries v. Hiltz Construction, 718 A.2d 236 (N.H. 1998). If a
settlement. N.H. Stat. § 507:7-h (1997); N.H. Stat. § 507:7-i
judgment for contribution is uncollectable from a defendant,
(1997); Nilsson v. Bierman, 839 A.2d 25 (N.H. 2003).
the amount of that judgment is reallocated among the
remaining defendants in accordance with their proportionate
share of the plaintiff’s damages. N.H. Stat. § 507:7-e (1997);
Rodgers v. Colby’s Ol’ Place, 802 A.2d 1159 (N.H. 2002).
18
Joint and Several Liability
New Jersey
Variable Liability
New Jersey draws a distinction between defendants based
A comparatively negligent plaintiff may recover his
on their degree of fault: several only liability is applied to a
proportionately reduced damages only if his negligence does
defendant less than 60 percent at fault, while a defendant 60
not exceed the degree of fault of the defendant from whom
percent or more at fault is liable jointly and severally. N.J. Stat.
the plaintiff seeks to collect. N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3 (1995);
§ 2A:15-5.3 (1995); Gennari v. Weichert Co., 691 A.2d 350
Reyes v. Egner, 991 A.2d 216 (N.J. 2010).
(N.J. 1997). If judgment is uncollectable from a defendant,
If a partial settlement is reached, the remaining defendants’
the plaintiff may recover the uncollectable amount of his
liability is reduced on a pro rata basis. N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3
damages from solvent defendants who are responsible to
(1995); Steele v. Kerrigan, 689 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1997).
pay their proportionate share of the unrecoverable award.
N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3 (1995); Brodsky v. Grinnell Haulers, 853
A.2d 940 (N.J. 2004). A defendant who pays more than its
percentage share is entitled to seek contribution from the other
defendants. N.J. Stat. § 2A:15-5.3 (1995); Steele v. Kerrigan,
689 A.2d 685 (N.J. 1997).
New Mexico
Variable Liability
The general rule in New Mexico is several liability. N.M. Stat.
The plaintiff contributing to his own damages does not bar
§ 41-3A-1 (1987); Herrera v. Quality Pontiac, 73 P.3d 181
his right to recover, but it does diminish his entitlement on
(N.M. 2003). Certain exceptions exist, however, including for
a proportionate basis. N.M. Stat. § 41-3A-1 (1987); Barth v.
intentional tortfeasors, vicariously liable defendants, the first of
Coleman, 878 P.2d 319 (N.M. 1994).
successive tortfeasors, defendants named in products liability
In case of a partial settlement, the settlement amount is
cases and cases involving inherently dangerous activities. Lewis
deducted from the total damages in joint and several liability
v. Samson, 35 P.3d 972 (N.M. 2001). The right of contribution
cases only. N.M. Stat. § 41-3-4 (1987); McConal Aviation v.
exists among joint tortfeasors. N.M. Stat. § 41-3-2 (1987);
Commercial Aviation Insurance, 799 P.2d 133 (N.M. S. 1990).
Payne v. Hall, 137 P.3d 599 (N.M. 2006). Of course, severally
liable defendants who pay only their proportionate share are
not entitled to contribution. Otero v. Jordan Restaurant, 922
P.2d 569 (N.M. 1996).
19
50-state survey
New York
Hybrid and Variable Liability
In New York, the general rule is joint and several liability.
The plaintiff’s fault, if any, diminishes the amount of damages
Cooney v. Osgood Machinery, 612 N.E.2d 277 (N.Y. 1993).
he is entitled to recover by the degree of his own fault – but
Exceptions exist, however. Personal injury defendants who
it does not bar the plaintiff’s action. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R. §
are less than 50 percent liable face several-only liability for
1411 (1975); Trupia v. Lake George Central School Dist., 927
the plaintiff’s noneconomic damages. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R.
N.E.2d 547 (N.Y. 2010).
§ 1601 (1986); Cole v. Mandell Food Stores, 710 N.E.2d 244
A partial settlement extinguishes the right to contribution for
(N.Y. 1999). Intentional acts, collusion and recklessness always
and from the settling tortfeasor. N.Y. Gen. Obl. L. § 15-108
trigger joint and several liability. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R. §
(1972); Glaser v. M. Fortunoff of Westbury Corp., 524 N.E.2d
1602 (1986); Chianese v. Meier, 774 N.E.2d 722 (N.Y. 2002). A
413 (N.Y. 1988). In case of such a partial settlement, the
host of other exceptions also exist that are intended to yield
remaining defendants are entitled to a setoff of the total
to the rules of substantive areas of law, including Labor Law
damages by the greater of the pro rata or the pro tanto
and Business Corporation Law. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R. § 1602
approach. Pollicina v. Misericordia Hospital, 624 N.E.2d 974
(1986); In re Seagroatt Floral Co., 583 N.E.2d 287 (N.Y. 1991).
(N.Y. 1993).
Where a tortfeasor has paid more than its proportionate
share, it is entitled to contribution. N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R. §
1401 (1986); Sommer v. Fed. Signal Corp., 593 N.E.2d 1365
(N.Y. 1992).
North Carolina
Pure Joint and Several Liability
North Carolina follows the rule of joint and several liability.
In case of a partial settlement, the non-settling defendants’
N.C. Stat. § 1B-2 (1967); Yates v. New South Pizza, 330 N.C.
liability is reduced by the settlement amount. N.C. Stat. § 1B-4
790 (N.C. 1992). Defendants paying more than their share of
(1967); Brown v. Flowe, 507 S.E.2d 894 (N.C. 1998).
the plaintiff’s loss are entitled to contribution unless they have
committed an intentional tort. N.C. Stat. § 1B-2 (1967); Teachy
v. Coble Dairies, 293 S.E.2d 182 (N.C. 1982).
North Carolina generally follows the rules of pure contributory
negligence: if the plaintiff’s failure to use ordinary care was
a proximate cause of his injury, he may not recover. Champs
Convenience Stores. v. United Chemical, 406 S.E.2d 856 (N.C.
1991). The exception to this rule lies in cases involving willful
or wanton conduct by the defendants or where the defendants
had the “last clear chance” to avoid the plaintiff’s injury.
VanCamp v. Burgner, 402 S.E.2d 375 (N.C. 1991).
20
Joint and Several Liability
North Dakota
Variable Liability
North Dakota has abolished joint and several liability for almost
Negligence by the plaintiff is a bar to recovery only if it
all cases. N.D. Code § 32-03.2-02 (1987); Kavadas v. Lorenzen,
exceeds the fault of others but even where it does not, his
448 N.W.2d 219 (N.D. 1989). The exceptions to this rule are for
recovery is reduced by the degree of his own fault. N.D. Code
cases where the defendants act in concert with one another or
§ 32-03.2-02 (1987); M.M. v. Fargo Public School District No. 1,
otherwise aid or ratify the tort. N.D. Code § 32-03.2-02 (1987);
815 N.W2d 273 (N.D. 2012).
Target Stores v. Automated Maintenance Services, 492 N.W.2d
In case of a partial settlement, the settling tortfeasors’ pro rata
899 (N.D. 1992).
share is deducted from the damages for which the non-settling
Contribution among the defendants may only be had if there is
defendants are liable. N.D. Code § 32-35-04 (1987); Hoerr
joint and several liability. N.D. Code § 32-03.2-02 (1987); Pierce
v. Northfield Foundry & Machine Co., 376 N.W.2d 323
v. Shannon, 607 N.W.2d 878 (N.D. 2000).
(N.D. 1985).
Ohio
Hybrid and Variable Liability
An Ohio defendant who is more than 50 percent liable for
A tortfeasor who is jointly and severally liable for damages
the plaintiff’s loss is jointly and severally liable for economic
and has paid more than its proportionate share is entitled to
damages. Ohio Code § 2307.22 (2003); Gurry v. C.P., 972 N.E.
contribution. Ohio Code § 2307.25 (2003); Hoffman v. Fraser,
154, (Oh. 2012). Defendants liable for intentional torts are also
__ N.E.2d ___, 2011 Ohio 2200 (Oh. Ct. App., Geauga County
jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s economic losses.
May 6, 2011). Settlement extinguishes the right to contribution
Ohio Code § 2307.22 (2003); Romig v. Baker Hi-Way Express,
and generally reduces, by the amount of the settlement, the
__ N.E. __, 2012 Ohio 321 (Ohio Ct. App., Tuscarawas County
plaintiff’s right to recover from the non-settling defendants.
Jan. 27, 2012). Several-only liability applies to noneconomic
Ohio Code § 2307.28 (2003); Spalla v. Fransen, 936 N.E.2d 559
losses, regardless of the defendants’ percentage of fault or the
(Oh. Ct. App. Geauga County July 23, 2010). No setoff may be
type of tort. Ohio Code § 2307.22 (2003); Waverly City Sch.
had, however, if the defendant is liable for an intentional tort.
Dist. v. Triad Architects, __ N.E. __, 2008 Ohio 6917 (Oh. Ct.
Ohio Code § 2307.25 (2003); Eysoldt v. Proscan Imaging, __
App., Franklin County Dec. 30, 2008).
N.E. __, 2011 Ohio 6740 (Oh. Ct. App., Hamilton County Dec.
28, 2011).
If the plaintiff (by his own negligence) is responsible for his
injuries to a greater degree than the defendants, then the
plaintiff may not recover. Ohio Code § 2315.33 (2003); Crosby
v. Radenko, __ N.E. __, 2011 Ohio 4662 (Ohio Ct. App.,
Montgomery County Sept. 16, 2011). Otherwise, the plaintiff’s
recovery is reduced by the amount of his own fault. Ohio Code
§ 2315.33 (2003); Sauer v. Crews, __ N.E. __, 2011 Ohio 3310
(Ohio Ct. App., Franklin County June 30, 2011).
21
50-state survey
Oklahoma
Pure Several Liability
Since 2011, Oklahoma’s rule is one of purely several and not
After a partial settlement, the settling tortfeasor no longer has
joint liability. 23 Okl. Stat. § 15 (2011). A tortfeasor is entitled to
any obligation to pay contribution to another and the plaintiff’s
contribution only if it paid more than its proportionate share of
recovery from the remaining tortfeasors is reduced by the
the judgment – which is to say, only if its liability arose prior to
settlement amount. 12 Okl .St. § 832 (1979); Hoyt v. Paul R.
the recent enactment of pure several liability. 12 Okl .St. § 832
Miller, M.D., Inc., 921 P.2d 350 (Okl. 1996).
(1991); Barringer v. Baptist Healthcare, 22 P.3d 695 (Okl. 2001).
The plaintiff’s negligence is not a bar to his recovery. 23 Okl .St.
§ 13 (1979); Bode v. Clark Equipment Co., 719 P.2d 824 (Okl.
1986). It does, however decrease the amount he is entitled
to recover by the portion of his damages for which he is
responsible. 23 Okl .St. § 14 (1979); Smith v. Jenkins, 873 P.2d
1044 (Okl. 1994).
Oregon
Variable Liability
With an exception for environmental torts, Oregon follows the
A partial settlement affects the non-settling tortfeasors’ liability
rule of several-only liability though it does allow for reallocation
only where there is joint and several liability, in which case
of uncollectable judgments. Or. Stat. § 31.610 (1971); Lasley v.
a setoff is had from the damages award. Or. Stat. § 31.610
Combined Transportation, 261 P.3d 1215 (Or. 2011). The right
(1971); Kerry v. Quicehuatl, 162 P.3d 1033 (Or. Ct. of App.
to contribution exists for defendants who pay more than their
2007).
proportionate share of the damages. Or. Stat. § 31.800 (1975);
Lasley v. Combined Transportation, 261 P.3d 1215 (Or. 2011).
Negligence by the plaintiff diminishes his right to recovery, but
it does not bar the action. Or. Stat. § 31.600 (1971); Bjorndal v.
Weitman, 184 P.3d 1115 (Or. 2008).
22
Joint and Several Liability
Pennsylvania
Variable Liability
Most Pennsylvania cases fall under the several-only liability
Unless the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendants’
rule. 42 Pa. Stat. § 7102 (2011); Harris v. Kellogg, Brown & Root
fault, it merely diminishes but does not preclude the plaintiff’s
Servs., 796 F.Supp.2d 642 (W.D. Pa. 2011). A few exceptions
right to recovery. 42 Pa. Stat. § 7102 (2011); Hannon v. Temple
exist, however, including for defendants who are more than
Univ., 2011 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 43 (Pa. C.P. Feb. 11,
60 percent at fault as well as intentional and environmental
2011).
tortfeasors and for Dram Shop actions. 42 Pa. Stat. § 7102
A partial settlement triggers a pro rata reduction of the
(2011); Jacobs v. Glenn O. Hawbaker, Inc., 13 A.3d 1056 (Pa.
remaining tortfeasors’ liability. Taylor v. Solberg, 566 Pa. 150
County Ct. 2012).
(Pa. 2001).
The right to contribution exists for jointly and severally liable
defendants but only where their liability is not for an intentional
tort. 42 Pa. Stat. § 8324 (1976); Toll Bros. v. Panitch, Schwarze,
Jacobs & Nadel, P.C., 2011 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 381
(Pa. County Ct. March 2, 2011). This right is extinguished by
settlement. 42 Pa. Stat. § 8324 (1976); Baker v. AC&S, Inc., 562
Pa. 290 (Pa. 2000).
Rhode Island
Pure Joint & Several Liability
Rhode Island tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable. R. I.
A partial settlement reduces the non-settling defendants’
Gen. Laws § 10-6-2 (1956); Graff v. Motta, 695 A.2d 486 (R.I.
liability by the settlement amount. R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-6-7
1997). There is a right to contribution among tortfeasors for
(2006); Shepardson v. Consolidated Med. Equip., 714 A.2d
a defendant who paid more than its proportionate share. R. I.
1181 (R.I. 1998).
Gen. Laws § 10-6-3 (1956); Hawkins v. Gadoury, 713 A.2d 799
(R.I. 1998). The right to contribution ceases with a settlement.
R.I. Gen. Laws § 10-6-5 (1956); Calise v. Hidden Valley
Condominium Ass’n, 773 A.2d 834 (R.I. 2001).
Rhode Island is a comparative negligence state, so the
negligence of the plaintiff is weighed against his right to
recover. R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4 (1971); Najarian v. Nat’l
Amusements, 768 A.2d 1253 (R.I. 2001).
23
50-state survey
South Carolina
Variable Liability
A defendant who is less than 50 percent at fault faces several-
In case of a partial settlement, the right to contribution is
only liability in South Carolina, provided that its conduct was
extinguished and the damages payable by the non-settling
not willful and that it did not involve illegal drugs or alcohol.
defendants is reduced by the amount of the settlement. S.C.
S.C. Code § 15-38-15 (2005); Branham v. Ford Motor Co.,
Code § 15-38-50 (1988); Simmons v. Greenville Hosp., 586
701 S.E.2d 5 (S.C. 2010). All other defendants are jointly and
S.E.2d 569 (S.C. 2003).
severally liable and have a right to contribution when they pay
more than their proportionate share provided that they did not
commit an intentional tort. S.C. Code § 15-38-20 (1998); First
Gen. Servs. v. Miller, 445 S.E.2d 446 (S.C. 1994).
South Carolina offsets the plaintiff’s award by the degree of his
own negligence. Berberich v. Jack, 709 S.E.2d 607 (S.C. 2011).
South Dakota
Variable Liability
In South Dakota, defendants 50 percent or more at fault are,
A plaintiff’s negligence does not bar recovery provided that it
without limitation, jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s
was “slight.” S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2 (1998); Harmon v.
damages. S.D. Codified Laws § 15-8-11 (2005); Centrol, Inc.
Washburn, 751 N.W.2d 297 (S.D. 2008). Whether the plaintiff’s
v. Morrow, 489 N.W.2d 890 (S.D. 1992). Defendants who are
fault is “slight” is determined on a case-by-case basis and
less than 50 percent at fault are still jointly and severally liable,
not by assignment of a specific percentage of liability. S.D.
but there is a cap on their liability for no more than twice their
Codified Laws § 20-9-2 (1998); Schmidt v. Royer, 574 N.W.2d
proportionate share of fault. S.D. Codified Laws § 15-8-15.1
618 (S.D. 1998). Where the plaintiff’s action is not barred by
(1987); Landstrom v. Shaver, 550 N.W.2d 699 (S.D. 1996).
excessive negligence on his part, his recovery is reduced by
the proportion of his negligence. S.D. Codified Laws § 20-9-2
Joint tortfeasors have a right to contribution should they pay
(1998); Steffen v. Schwan’s Sales, 713 N.W.2d 614 (S.D. 2006).
more than their proportionate share of the plaintiff’s damages.
S.D. Codified Laws § 15-8-12 (1960); Freeman v. Berg, 482
A partial settlement reduces by its amount what the plaintiff
N.W.2d 32, 34 (S.D. 1992).
may recover from the non-settling tortfeasors. S.D. Codified
Laws § 15-8-17 (1960); Fix v. First State Bank, 807 N.W.2d 612
(S.D. 2011).
24
Joint and Several Liability
Tennessee
Variable Liability
In most cases, Tennessee defendants are liable severally, not
The plaintiff’s fault does not bar his recovery, but it does
jointly. Banks v. Elks Club Pride of Tenn. 1102, 301 S.W.3d
proportionately reduce his entitlement to damages. McIntyre v.
214 (Tenn. 2010). Exceptions in which joint and several liability
Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992).
remains the rule are for products liability cases and for cases
In case of a settlement with some but not all tortfeasors, the
where the defendants act in concert. Limbaugh v. Coffee Med.
plaintiff’s recovery from the non-settling defendants is reduced
Ctr., 59 S.W.3d 73 (Tenn. 2001).
by the amount of the settlement. Tenn. Code § 29-11-105
(1968); Tutton v. Patterson, 714 S.W.2d 268 (Tenn. 1986).
Where the rule of joint and several liability applies, tortfeasors
are entitled to contribution when they pay more than their
proportionate share, if they did not commit an intentional tort.
Tenn. Code § 29-11-102 (1999); GE v. Process Control Co., 969
S.W.2d 914 (Tenn. 1998).
Texas
Variable Liability
Texas defendants who are more than 50 percent at fault
If some defendants settle, the plaintiff’s damages recoverable
and those who act with intent to harm, regardless of their
from the remaining defendants are generally reduced by the
proportionate share, are jointly and severally liable in tort.
amount of the settlement. Tex. Civ. Prac. § 33.012 (2005);
Tex. Civ. Prac. § 33.013 (2003); Sharyland Water Supply Corp.
Battaglia v. Alexander, 177 S.W.3d 893 (Tex. 2005). If the
v. City of Alton, 354 S.W.3d 407 (Tex. 2011). A jointly and
case involves a health care claim, the non-settling defendant’s
severally liable defendant that pays more than its proportionate
liability is reduced either by the amount of the settlement or
share does have a right to contribution. Tex. Civ. Prac. § 33.015
the pro rata share of the discontinued party – defendant’s
(1995); C & H Nationwide v. Thompson, 903 S.W.2d 315
choice. Tex. Civ. Prac. § 33.012 (2005).
(Tex. 1994).
A comparatively negligent plaintiff, whose fault is not greater
than 50 percent, may recover his damages less the portion
attributed to his own fault. Tex. Civ. Prac. § 33.001 (1995); Tex.
Civ. Prac. § 33.012 (2005); Del Lago Partners v. Smith, 307
S.W.3d 762 (Tex. 2010).
25
50-state survey
Utah
Pure Several Liability
Utah defendants are always severally, and not jointly, liable.
Utah adopted a modified version of comparative negligence:
Ut. Code § 78B-5-818 (1986); Egbert v. Nissan Motor Co.,
the plaintiff may recover, less the portion of his damages
228 P.3d 737 (Utah 2010). Utah provides for the reallocation
attributable to him, if the defendants are at greater fault than
of the portion of fault of those who are immune from suit,
the plaintiff. Ut. Code § 78B-5-818 (1986).
provided that the fault of the non-parties is less than 40
A partial settlement does not affect the non-settling tortfeasors,
percent. Therefore, a defendant may still pay more than its
unless the settling parties agree otherwise. Bodell Construction
proportionate share of liability. Ut. Code § 78B-5-819 (1986).
v. Robbins, 215 P.3d 933 (Utah 2009).
Additionally, there is no right to contribution. Ut. Code §
78B-5-820 (1986).
Vermont
Variable Liability
In Vermont, defendants are severally, and not jointly, liable only
There is no right to contribution among Vermont defendants,
where the plaintiff is also at fault. Vt. Stat. § 1036 (1980); Levine
even for those who pay more than their proportionate share
v. Wyeth, 944 A.2d 179 (Vt. 2006). Under such circumstances,
of the plaintiff’s damages. Howard v. Spafford, 321 A.2d 74
the negligent plaintiff may recover for the portion of his loss
(Vt. 1974).
that is not attributable to him, provided that his fault is less
If the plaintiff settles with some but not all defendants, then the
than the defendants’ taken together. Vt. Stat. § 1036 (1980);
amount of the settlement is deducted from the total damages
Smedberg v. Detlef’s Custodial Serv., 940 A.2d 674 (Vt. 2007).
award. Slayton v. Ford Motor Co., 435 A.2d 946 (Vt. 1981).
Virginia
Pure Joint & Several Liability
Tortfeasors face joint and several liability in Virginia. Va. Code
Where some but not all defendants settle with the plaintiff,
§ 8.01-443 (1977); Cox v. Geary, 624 S.E.2d 16 (Va. 2006). They
the settling defendants are no longer subject to a claim
do have a right to contribution provided their liability arises
for contribution and the non-settling defendants’ liability is
from negligence (not from an intentional tort) and provided
reduced by the amount of the settlement. Va. Code § 8.01-
that it does not involve an act of moral turpitude. Va. Code §
35.1. (1983); Downer v. CSX Transportation, 507 S.E.2d 612
8.01-34 (1977); Sullivan v. Robertson Drug Co., 639 S.E.2d 250
(Va. 1998).
(Va. 2007).
Virginia follows the rule of contributory negligence: if the
plaintiff contributed to his own loss to any degree, then he
is barred from recovery. Norfolk & W. R. Co. v. Sonney, 374
S.E.2d 71 (Va. 1988).
26
Joint and Several Liability
Washington
Variable Liability
Washington state defendants are jointly and severally liable in
If the plaintiff settles with some but not all parties, the settling
cases where the plaintiff does not bear any of the fault, in cases
defendants are no longer subject to any claim for contribution.
where the defendants act in concert, where vicarious liability
Wash. Code § 4.22.070 (1987); Wash. State Physicians Ins.
applies, and in cases involving hazardous waste disposal,
Exch. v. Fisons Corp., 858 P.2d 1054 (Wash. 1993). The
asbestos and tortious interference with contract. Wash. Code
plaintiff’s entitlement to a recovery from the remaining
§ 4.22.070 (1986); Kottler v. State, 963 P.2d 834 (Wash. 1998).
defendants is reduced by the amount of the settlement only
If none of these exceptions apply, the defendants’ liability is
if the settlement is reached after judgment or if the settling
several only. Wash. Code § 4.22.070 (1986); Washburn v. Beatt
defendants are liable under a vicarious liability theory. Wash.
Equipment Co., 840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992).
Code § 4.22.070 (1987); Washburn v. Beatt Equipment Co.,
840 P.2d 860 (Wash. 1992).
If joint and several liability applies, the defendants have the
right to seek contribution from one another. Wash. Code
§ 4.22.050 (1981); Wash. Code § 4.22.070 (1986); Mazon v.
Krafchick, 144 P.3d 1168 (Wash. 2006).
In a case where the plaintiff contributes to his own damages,
his actions are allocated their own percentage share – for
which the defendants are not liable. Wash. Code § 4.22.070
(1986); Hiner v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 978 P.2d 505
(Wash. 1999).
West Virginia
Variable Liability
West Virginia defendants are largely jointly and severally liable.
The right of contribution exists in favor of defendants who pay
W.V. Code § 55-7-24 (2005). There is a limited exception under
more than their share of liability. W.V. Code § 55-7-13 (1923);
which several-only liability applies for defendants who are
Rowe v. Sisters of the Pallottine Missionary Soc’y, 560 S.E.2d
less than 30 percent at fault, did not act in concert with others
491 (W.V. 2001).
and are not liable for an intentional or an environmental tort
The plaintiff may not recover for the portion of his damages
or in products liability. W.V. Code § 55-7-24 (2005). Provisions
that are his own fault. Bradley v. Appalachian Power Co., 256
limiting several liability exist for cases involving political
S.E.2d 879 (W.V. 1979).
subdivision defendants and for medical malpractice claims.
W.V. Code § 55-7B-9 (2003); W.V. Code § 29-12A-7 (1986);
In case of a partial settlement, the settlement amount is
Strahin v. Cleavenger, 603 S.E.2d 197 (W.V. 2004). Additionally,
reduced from the total judgment only where there has been no
uncollectable portions of the plaintiff’s damages award may be
apportionment of liability between the settling and non-settling
reallocated to other defendants who are 10 percent or more
defendants. Johnson v. General Motors Corp., 438 S.E.2d 28
at fault provided their fault is greater than the plaintiff’s. W.V.
(W.V. 1993).
Code § 55-7-24 (2005).
27
50-state survey
Wisconsin
Variable Liability
Defendants who are 51 percent or more at fault and all
A Wisconsin plaintiff’s negligence defeats his entitlement
those who acted in a concerted way that led to the plaintiff’s
to recovery only if it exceeds the defendant’s share of the
damages are liable jointly and severally. Wis. Stat. § 895.045
fault. When it does not, the damages award is reduced by
(1995); Richards v. Badger Mut. Ins., 749 N.W.2d 581 (Wis.
the portion that correlates to the plaintiff’s share. Wis. Stat. §
2008). Other defendants’ liability is several only where the
895.045 (1995); Matthies v. Positive Safety Mfg., 628 N.W.2d
case is one of strict products liability. Wis. Stat. § 895.045
842 (Wis. 2001).
(1995); Fuchsgruber v. Custom Accessories, 628 N.W.2d 833
A partial settlement results in a reduction of the plaintiff’s
(Wis. 2001).
damages award (recoverable from the remaining defendants)
If a defendant pays more than its proportionate share, it
by the settling defendants’ pro rata share. Brandner v. Allstate
is entitled to recover from codefendants in contribution.
Ins. Co., 512 N.W.2d 753 (Wis. 1994).
Wisconsin Natural Gas Co. v. Ford, Bacon & Davis
Construction, 291 N.W.2d 825 (Wis. 1980).
Wyoming
Pure Several Liability
Wyoming follows the rule of pure several liability. Wyo. Stat.
If the plaintiff settles with some but not all parties, the
§ 1-1-109 (1986); Pinnacle Bank v. Villa, 100 P.3d 1287 (Wyo.
remaining, non-settling defendants remain liable for their
2004). Since tortfeasors pay only their proportionate share
percentage of the plaintiff’s damages, irrespective of the
of the judgment, there is no right to contribution. Anderson
settlement. Haderlie v. Sondgeroth, 866 P.2d 703 (Wyo. 1993).
Highway Signs & Supply, v. Close, 6 P.3d 123 (Wyo. 2000).
In Wyoming, a negligent plaintiff is not barred from recovery,
but his damages will be reduced by the portion of his own
fault, as long as his portion of fault is at most 59 percent. Wyo.
Stat. § 1-1-109 (1986); Parrish v. Groathouse Construction, 130
P.3d 502 (Wyo. 2006).
28
Offices & Affiliates
OFFICES
Albany
677 Broadway
Albany, NY 12207
518.449.8893
Baltimore
500 East Pratt Street
Baltimore, MD 21202
410.539.1800
Boston
260 Franklin Street
Boston, MA 02110
617.422.5300
Chicago
55 West Monroe Street
Chicago, IL 60603
312.704.0550
Connecticut
1010 Washington Boulevard
Stamford, CT 06901
203.388.9100
Dallas
Affiliates
LONDON
Philadelphia
BERLIN
Los Angeles
San Diego
Cologne
Miami
San Francisco
65 Fenchurch Street
London, EC3M 4BE
United Kingdom
+44.20.7553.8383
Independence Square West
The Curtis Center
Philadelphia, PA 19106
215.627.6900
555 South Flower Street
Los Angeles, CA 90071
213.443.5100
655 West Broadway
San Diego, CA 92101
619.321.6200
100 Southeast Second Street
Miami, FL 33131
305.374.4400
Bach, Langheid & Dallmayr
Beethovenstrasse 5-13
60674 Köln, Germany
+49.221.94.40 27-0
Frankfurt
525 Market Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
415.433.0990
Milwaukee
Bach, Langheid & Dallmayr
Oeder Weg 52-54
60318 Frankfurt/Main, Germany
+49.69.92 07 40-0
Virginia
740 North Plankinton Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53203
414.276.8816
8444 Westpark Drive
McLean, VA 22102
703.245.9300
New Jersey
Munich
Bach, Langheid & Dallmayr
Karlstrasse 10 (Karolinenblock)
80333 München, Germany
+49.89.54 58 77-0
Washington, DC
200 Campus Drive
Florham Park, NJ 07932
973.624.0800
700 11th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
202.626.7660
Bank of America Plaza
901 Main Street,
Dallas, TX 75202
214.698.8000
New York
West Palm Beach
Denver
Orlando
White Plains
1512 Larimer Street
Denver, CO 80202
303.572.5300
Bach, Langheid & Dallmayr
Grolmanstrasse 36
10623 Berlin, Germany
+49.30.88 62 69-0
150 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017
212.490.3000
Paris
Honig Mettetal Ndiaye
(HMN & Partners)
2 Avenue Montaigne
75008 Paris, France
+33 (0) 1 53 57 50 50
222 Lakeview Avenue
West Palm Beach, FL 33401
561.515.4000
105 East Robinson Street
Orlando, FL 32801
407.423.7287
1133 Westchester Avenue
White Plains, NY 10604
914.323.7000
Garden City
666 Old Country Road
Garden City, NY 11530
516.228.8900
Houston
5847 San Felipe Street
Houston, TX 77057
713.353.2000
Licensed to Practice
Offices
Kentucky
100 Mallard Creek Road
Louisville, KY 40207
502.238.8500
Las Vegas
300 South 4th Street,
Las Vegas, NV 89101
702.727.1400
Boston
Albany
Connecticut
Garden City
White Plains
Milwaukee
New Jersey
Philadelphia
Chicago
New York
Baltimore
Virginia
Denver
San Francisco
Washington, D.C.
Kentucky
Las Vegas
Los Angeles
San Diego
Dallas
London
Houston
Orlando
West Palm Beach
Miami
29
wilsonelser.com
OFFICES
AFFILIATES
Albany
Baltimore
Boston
Chicago
Connecticut
Dallas
Denver
Garden City
Houston
Kentucky
Las Vegas
London
Los Angeles
Miami
Milwaukee
New Jersey
New York
Orlando
Philadelphia
San Diego
San Francisco
Virginia
Washington DC
West Palm Beach
White Plains
Berlin
Cologne
Frankfurt
Munich
Paris
© 2013 Wilson Elser. All rights reserved. 496-13