Independent and Joint Tortfeasors

Introduction

The concept of joint tortfeasors and their liability in tort law states that, when two or more persons commit some tort against the same plaintiff, they may be either independent tortfeasors or joint tortfeasors. It explains that when two or more individuals collaborate to cause harm to another person, they are considered joint tortfeasors. Each participant in the wrongful act is liable for all the damage caused, regardless of their individual contribution to the harm.

The principle of contribution is also highlighted, which allows a defendant who pays more than their share of damages to seek recovery from other defendants. This section sets the stage for understanding the legal framework surrounding joint tortfeasors, including the implications of their actions and the responsibilities they bear towards the injured party.

Independent Tortfeasors

• Independent tortfeasors are individuals or entities that cause harm to another person through separate and independent wrongful acts, rather than through a concerted or collaborative effort.
• In this context, each tortfeasor’s actions are distinct, and they do not work together to achieve a common goal that results in damage.
• In The Kursk[1], due to independent negligence of the two ships, they collided with one another and consequences of the same are that one of them ran into and sank a third vessel. It was held that they were not joining tortfeasors but only independence tortfeasors. The liability of the independent tortfeasor was not joint but only ‘several’ and, therefore, there were as many causes of action as the number of tortfeasors. It was further held that since they were severely liable, an action against one of them was no bar to an action against the other.
• For example, if two motorists are driving negligently and collide with a pedestrian, causing injury, they are considered independent tortfeasors. Each driver’s negligence is a separate cause of action, and they are severely liable for the damages caused to the pedestrian, meaning that the injured party can pursue claims against each tortfeasor individually for the harm suffered.
• In legal terms, independent tortfeasors do not share joint liability for the same tort; instead, their liability is based on their individual actions that contribute to a single injury or damage. This distinction is important in determining how damages are apportioned and how claims can be pursued in court.

Joint Tortfeasors

• Joint tortfeasors are two or more individuals or entities that collectively engage in wrongful conduct that results in harm to another person.
• They are considered joint tortfeasors when their actions are interconnected and contribute to a single injury or damage, typically in furtherance of a common design or purpose.
• In legal terms, joint tortfeasors share joint liability for the entire damage caused, meaning that the injured party can seek full compensation from any one of them, regardless of their individual degree of fault.
• This principle allows the plaintiff to recover the total amount of damages from any of the joint tortfeasors, who can then seek contributions from each other based on their respective shares of liability.
• In Brook v. Bool[2], A and B entered Z’s premises to search for an escape of gas. Each one of them, in turn, applied naked light to the gas pipe. A’s application resulted in an explosion, causing damage to Z’s premises. In this case, even though the act of A alone had caused the explosion, both A and B were considered to be joint tortfeasors and thus held liable for the damage.
• For example, if two individuals conspire to commit a tort, such as vandalism, and their combined actions result in damage to a property, both are considered joint tortfeasors. Their liability is not only for their individual actions but also for the collective harm caused by their joint efforts. This concept is crucial in tort law as it facilitates the recovery process for victims of wrongful acts.

Joint and Several Liability

• The liability of joint tortfeasors is joint and several.
• The plaintiff has a choice to sue any 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.
• In Sasidharan v. Sukumaran[3], a wrongly parked truck was hit by a bus driven rashly and negligently and a person sitting in the truck sustained injuries. The tribunal held that both the drivers were equally negligent. Damage was caused not by joint action but by separate actions independent of each other. The injured were 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.

Composite Tortfeasors

• Composite tortfeasors refer to a specific category of tortfeasors who are involved in a situation where multiple parties contribute to a single injury or damage through their combined actions, but their contributions may arise from different legal relationships or circumstances.
• This term often applies when the wrongful acts of different parties, such as employees, partners, or agents, lead to a single harm, and these parties are held jointly liable for the resulting damage.
• In the context of composite tortfeasors, the liability can arise from various relationships, such as:
  • Agency: When an agent commits a tort while acting within the scope of their authority, both the agent and the principal can be held liable as composite tortfeasors.
  • Partnership: If one partner commits a wrongful act in the course of the partnership’s business, all partners may be liable for that act as composite tortfeasors.
  • Vicarious Liability: An employer may be held liable for the torts committed by an employee during the course of their employment, making both the employer and the employee composite tortfeasors[4].

Distinction between Joint and Independent Tortfeasors

The distinction between joint and independent tortfeasors lies primarily in the nature of their actions and the resulting liability for damages. Here are some of them:

Position in India

In India, the legal framework regarding joint and independent tortfeasors is primarily based on common law principles, as there is no specific statutory law governing the liability of joint tortfeasors. Here are the key points regarding the position of joint and independent tortfeasors in India:

1. Common Law Principles: Indian courts have historically followed common law principles regarding tort liability, which were established in England. This includes the concepts of joint and independent tortfeasors as articulated in cases like Brinsmead[5] and Merryweather[6], which laid down the rules for joint liability.

2. Joint Tortfeasors: In India, joint tortfeasors are treated similarly to their counterparts in other jurisdictions. When two or more parties act together in furtherance of a common design that results in a single injury, they are considered joint tortfeasors and are jointly and severally liable for the damages. This means that the injured party can recover the full amount of damages from any one of the joint tortfeasors, who can then seek contributions from the others based on their respective shares of liability.

3. Independent Tortfeasors: Independent tortfeasors in India are those whose actions cause harm through separate and independent wrongful acts. Each tortfeasor is liable only for the damage attributable to their own actions. The injured party must pursue claims against each tortfeasor separately, as their liability is not joint but several.

4. Judicial Interpretation: Indian courts have interpreted the principles of joint and independent tortfeasors in various cases. For instance, in the case of Thompson v. London County Council[7], the court distinguished between joint and independent tortfeasors, emphasizing that while the damage may be the same, the causes of action can be different, leading to separate liabilities.

5. Lack of Statutory Framework: Unlike England, where the Law Reform Act of 1935 and the Civil Liability Act of 1978 have clarified the position of joint tortfeasors, India lacks a similar statutory framework. This has led to some uncertainty in the application of these principles, and Indian courts have sometimes expressed doubts about the applicability of the common law principles established in England prior to the enactment of these laws.

6. Recent Developments: The Supreme Court of India has occasionally addressed the issue of joint tortfeasors, emphasizing the need for clarity in determining liability and the rights of injured parties to seek full compensation. However, the absence of a comprehensive statutory framework means that the application of these principles can vary based on judicial interpretation and the specifics of each case.

The Rights of Tortfeasors: Contribution and Indemnity contribution between Joint Tortfeasors

• The liability of the joint tortfeasors is joint and several. The plaintiff has, therefore, a right, if he so likes, to make only one of the joint tortfeasors to meet the whole of his claim.
• The question that generally arises is that if one of the several tortfeasors has been made to pay, not only for his own share of responsibility but for others as well, how far he can ask others responsible with him to contribute for their share of responsibility.
• For example, if A and B have an equal share of responsibility in a tort that they commit against X, and A has been made to pay a sum of Rs. 1000 to fully compensate X for the loss suffered by him, can A sue B to recover a contribution of Rs. 500 from him?
• The answer to this question was given in the negative in 1799 in Merryweather vs. Nixan[8].
• According to this decision, there could be no contribution between the joint tortfeasors. Thus, if only one of the defendants was made to pay the whole of the amount of damages, he could not recover anything, by way of indemnity or contributions from others who were also responsible for the damage.

Indemnity

• It has been noted above that the joint tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable to the injured party and the plaintiff may sometimes recover the whole of the loss from anyone of them.
• There may be situations where the joint tortfeasor, who has been made to pay for the whole of the loss, may not be guilty at all and some other joint tortfeasors may be solely to blame at all and some others for wrongful act.
• In such a case, the guilty joint tortfeasor must fully compensate that one who has actually paid compensation, or in other words, one joint tortfeasor must indemnify the other.
• Even before the Law Reform Act, 1935, certain exceptions to the rule in Merryweather v. Nixan came to be recognised.
• If the situation demanded, indemnity could be claimed by one of the joint tortfeasors from the other.
• In the case of Adamson v. Jarvis[9], one of the joint tortfeasors was entitled to claim indemnity from the other. In that case, the plaintiff, an auctioneer, sold certain goods, in good faith, on behalf of the defendant. It turned out that the defendant had no right to the goods and the true owner recovered compensation from the auctioneer. The auctioneer was held entitled to be indemnified by the defendant for the loss caused to the former.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the distinction between joint and independent tortfeasors is a critical aspect of tort law that influences liability and the recovery of damages in India. Joint tortfeasors, who act together in furtherance of a common purpose, are held jointly and severally liable for the harm caused, allowing the injured party to seek full compensation from any one of them. In contrast, independent tortfeasors, whose actions are separate and unconnected, are only severally liable for the damages they individually caused, necessitating separate claims against each party. The position in India reflects a reliance on common law principles, with courts interpreting these concepts in various cases. However, the absence of a specific statutory framework governing tort liability creates uncertainties and challenges in application. Judicial interpretations have provided some clarity, but inconsistencies may arise due to the lack of uniformity in the application of these principles.

As the legal landscape evolves, there may be a need for legislative reforms to establish clearer guidelines on the liability of joint and independent tortfeasors, ensuring that the rights of injured parties are adequately protected and that the principles of justice, equity, and good conscience are upheld in tortious claims.

[1] Law Reports (1924) Probate Division, 140.

[2] (1928) 2 K.B. 578.

[3] 2005 (3) KLT 1063.

[4] R.K. Bangia’s The Law Of Torts (Revised by Dr. Narender Kumar).

[5] Brinsmead v. Harrison, (1871) 2 R 7 CP 547.

[6] Merryweather v. Nixan, 101 Eng. Rep. 1337 (1799).

[7] [1899] 1 Q. B. 840.

[8] (1799) 8 T.R. 186.

[9] Adamson v Jarvis (1827) 4 Bing 66.