Understanding the Concept of Joint Tort Feasors

Introduction

All individuals who assist, advise, direct, or participate in the commission of a wrongful act are considered joint tort-feasors. In other words, when two or more individuals act together to cause harm to a third party, they are regarded as joint tort-feasors. The term "joint tort-feasors" signifies the shared liability of wrongdoers in cases of civil wrongs.

Under this principle, each tort-feasor is responsible for compensating only for the portion of the damage they caused. This means that the total compensation is divided among the tort-feasors in proportion to the harm attributed to each.

The principle of contribution allows a tort-feasor who has paid more than their share of compensation to the plaintiff to recover the excess amount from the other tort-feasors, ensuring fairness in the distribution of liability.

As said by Sargent L.J.“There must be a concurrence in the act or acts causing damage, and not merely a coincidence of separate acts, which, by their conjoined effect, cause damage.”

In India, there is no specific statutory law governing the joint liability of tortfeasors. However, Indian courts have generally referred to principles established in cases like Brinsmead and Merryweather. Despite this, doubts about the applicability of these English common law principles in the Indian context have been raised in some judgments.

In the landmark case of Khushro S. Gandhi v. Guzdar, the Supreme Court of India declined to adopt the English common law principle that each tortfeasor is individually liable for the entirety of the damage. The Court held that in cases involving joint tortfeasors, other joint tortfeasors can only rely on accord and satisfaction if the plaintiff has received full satisfaction or its equivalent from one tortfeasor. This ruling emphasized a more equitable approach to liability in the Indian legal system.

Joint tort-feasors are the individuals who either act together or independently cause the same injury or damage to the plaintiff. Their liabilities can be categorized as follows:

• 1. Joint and Several Liability: Joint tort-feasors are collectively and individually responsible for the harm caused. The injured party can claim the full compensation from one tort-feasor or all of them collectively. Once full compensation is received, the liability of other joint tort-feasors ceases.
• 2. Indivisible Damage: If the wrongful acts of multiple tort-feasors combine to cause a single, inseparable harm, they are all equally liable, regardless of the degree of individual fault.

Nature of Joint Tortfeasor’s Liability

The liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several in nature. This means that all individuals who commit a wrongful act together or contribute to its occurrence are collectively responsible for the harm caused, but each tortfeasor can also be held individually liable for the entire damage. Different circumstances are involved when it comes to liability of joint tortfeasors:

• 1. Joint Liability: All tortfeasors are considered to have contributed to the same wrongful act. The injured party can recover the full number of damages from any one of the tortfeasors, regardless of the degree of their individual participation.
• 2. Several Liability: Each tortfeasor is independently liable for the full extent of the harm caused. This allows the injured party to pursue any one or more tortfeasors for compensation without having to sue all of them.
• 3. Right of Contribution: If one tortfeasor pays more than their fair share of damages, they can seek contribution from the other tortfeasors to recover the excess amount.
• 4. Indivisibility of Damage: In cases where the harm caused cannot be easily apportioned among the tortfeasors, all are held equally liable for the entire damage.
• 5. Release of Liability: Releasing one tortfeasor from liability does not necessarily release the others unless the injured party has received full satisfaction for the damage or explicitly agreed to discharge all of them.

Practical Implications: The joint and several liability of tortfeasors ensures that the injured party is not left uncompensated due to the inability of one or more tortfeasors to pay. At the same time, it provides a mechanism for tortfeasors to distribute the financial burden equitably among themselves.

Contribution between Joint Tortfeasor’s

It refers to the legal principle that allows one tortfeasor who has paid more than their fair share of damages to recover the excess from the other joint tortfeasors. This ensures equitable distribution of liability among those responsible for the wrongful act.This principle is based on the maxim ‘Ex Turpi Causa Non Oritur Actio’, which lays down that, no action arises from an illegal cause. For Example: A person who suffers damage at the hands of another but in addition he himself has acted in an unconscionable manner should be deprived of any remedy which the law would have otherwise provided.

Merryweather v. Nixon (1799) (English Law): Initially barred contribution between joint tortfeasors where intentional wrongdoing was involved. However, this principle was later relaxed in cases involving negligence.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the concept of joint tort-feasors is crucial for ensuring fair compensation to victims of civil wrongs when multiple parties contribute to the harm. While Indian law lacks a specific statutory framework, the principles derived from English common law, tempered by judicial pronouncements like Khushro S. Gandhi v. Guzdar, have shaped the understanding of joint liability. The joint and several liability structure allows injured parties to seek full compensation from any or all tort-feasors, safeguarding their interests. Simultaneously, the right of contribution enables a fair distribution of the financial burden among the wrongdoers, preventing undue hardship on any single party. The principle of indivisible damage further reinforces the collective responsibility when the harm cannot be easily apportioned. Although the Merryweather v. Nixon rule initially restricted contribution in cases of intentional wrongdoing, its subsequent relaxation in negligence cases reflects the evolving legal approach towards achieving equitable outcomes. Overall, the established legal principles and judicial interpretations aim to balance the rights of the injured party with the need for fairness among those who contribute to the wrongdoing, ensuring that liability is justly distributed.