Joint and Several Liability
In one sentence
Multiple defendants can each be held fully responsible for the entire judgment, not just their share.
Plain English
When two or more people or companies are sued together for causing harm, the injured person can collect the full amount from any one of them, rather than having to split the recovery among all defendants. This means if you win a $100,000 judgment against three defendants, you can demand all $100,000 from just one of them, and that defendant can then try to recover their fair share from the others. It protects the injured person by ensuring they get paid even if some defendants can't pay.
Example
Two drivers are involved in a car accident that injures a passenger. The passenger sues both drivers and wins a $50,000 judgment. The passenger can collect the full $50,000 from either driver, even if one driver is judgment-proof or has no insurance.
Used in a sentence
“Under joint and several liability, the plaintiff could recover the entire judgment from any single defendant.”
How Joint and Several Liability differs by state
Joint and Several Liability can apply differently depending on the state. Click a state to see local specifics.
Alabama
Alabama applies joint and several liability fully, allowing plaintiffs to recover the entire judgment from any defendant regardless of fault percentage.
Alaska
Alaska limits joint and several liability to defendants whose negligence exceeds 50 percent of total fault.
Arizona
Arizona restricts joint and several liability to economic damages only; non-economic damages are apportioned by fault percentage.
Arkansas
Arkansas applies joint and several liability in full for all damages without significant statutory restrictions.
California
California restricts joint and several liability to economic damages; non-economic damages follow comparative fault percentages.
Colorado
Colorado abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages unless a defendant is more than 50% at fault.
Connecticut
Connecticut retains full joint and several liability for all damages when a defendant is more than 60% at fault.
Delaware
Delaware applies joint and several liability to economic damages only; non-economic damages are proportionate.
Florida
Florida abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages; economic damages remain joint and several.
Georgia
Georgia retains traditional joint and several liability for all damages without threshold restrictions.
Hawaii
Hawaii allows joint and several liability for defendants whose negligence exceeds 25% of total fault.
Idaho
Idaho allows full joint and several liability for all defendants regardless of their percentage of fault.
Illinois
Illinois limits joint and several liability to defendants whose fault exceeds 50% of total negligence.
Indiana
Indiana applies joint and several liability only when a defendant's negligence exceeds 50% of total fault.
Iowa
Iowa allows joint and several liability for all defendants in most negligence cases without fault thresholds.
Kansas
Kansas allows joint and several liability for all defendants in most cases, with no comparative fault cap.
Kentucky
Kentucky applies joint and several liability without restriction, allowing recovery of full damages from any defendant.
Louisiana
Louisiana uses proportional liability based on comparative fault; defendants pay only their percentage share, not joint and several.
Maine
Maine applies joint and several liability for all defendants unless comparative negligence reduces a defendant's share below 60%.
Maryland
Maryland applies joint and several liability for all defendants without comparative fault limitations or thresholds.
Massachusetts
Massachusetts allows joint and several liability for all defendants, with no comparative fault limitations.
Michigan
Michigan limits joint and several liability to defendants found more than 50% at fault.
Minnesota
Minnesota applies joint and several liability only when a defendant's negligence is more than 50% of the total.
Mississippi
Mississippi applies traditional joint and several liability with no percentage-based restrictions.
Missouri
Missouri limits joint and several liability to defendants whose negligence exceeds 50% of the total.
Montana
Montana allows joint and several liability for all defendants, with no comparative fault limitations.
Nebraska
Nebraska applies joint and several liability fully, with defendants liable for the entire judgment regardless of fault percentage.
Nevada
Nevada limits joint and several liability: defendants are jointly liable only for non-economic damages; economic damages follow proportional fault.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire applies joint and several liability fully across all tort cases without comparative fault restrictions.
New Jersey
New Jersey limits joint and several liability to defendants whose fault exceeds 60% of total fault.
New Mexico
New Mexico applies joint and several liability in most cases, but defendants can seek contribution from co-defendants for their proportional share.
New York
New York limits joint and several liability for non-economic damages when a defendant is less than 50% at fault.
North Carolina
North Carolina applies traditional joint and several liability, allowing full recovery from any defendant, with contribution rights among co-defendants.
North Dakota
North Dakota applies joint and several liability but limits it when a defendant's fault is less than 50% in comparative fault cases.
Ohio
Ohio applies joint and several liability for economic damages but limits it for non-economic damages when a defendant is less than 50% at fault.
Oklahoma
Oklahoma allows joint and several liability for all defendants, with no comparative fault limitations or caps.
Oregon
Oregon restricts joint and several liability to defendants found more than 15% at fault under ORS 31.600.
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania applies joint and several liability to all defendants without comparative fault restrictions or thresholds.
Rhode Island
Rhode Island applies joint and several liability broadly, with no statutory comparative fault restrictions on the doctrine.
South Carolina
South Carolina applies joint and several liability to all defendants without comparative fault thresholds or caps.
South Dakota
South Dakota applies joint and several liability in most civil cases, allowing plaintiffs to recover full damages from any defendant.
Tennessee
Tennessee limits joint and several liability to defendants whose fault exceeds 50%, protecting defendants with minor fault shares.
Texas
Texas abolished joint and several liability for most defendants, limiting full liability to those responsible for more than 50% of damages.
Utah
Utah applies joint and several liability in most cases, but defendants can limit exposure if their fault is below a certain threshold.
Vermont
Vermont applies traditional joint and several liability, holding each defendant fully responsible for the entire judgment amount.
Virginia
Virginia abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages in most cases under comparative fault rules.
Washington
Washington maintains joint and several liability for all damages but allows defendants to recover comparative fault contributions from co-defendants.
West Virginia
West Virginia applies joint and several liability fully but limits it when a defendant's fault is below a certain threshold.
Wisconsin
Wisconsin abolished joint and several liability for non-economic damages; defendants pay only their proportional share unless they exceed 51% fault.
Wyoming
Wyoming applies traditional joint and several liability for all damages without significant statutory restrictions.
District of Columbia
DC allows joint and several liability for all defendants, with no comparative fault cap or exception.
Related terms
Damages Calculation
The process of determining how much money a harmed party should receive for a breach.
Mitigation of Damages
A duty to take reasonable steps to minimize losses caused by another party's breach.
Negligent Misrepresentation
A false statement made without reasonable care for its truth, causing harm to the other party.
Dram Shop Liability
Legal responsibility of bars or stores for harm caused by serving alcohol to intoxicated people.
Breach of Warranty
Failing to fulfill a promise or guarantee made about a product or service.
Negligence
Failure to exercise reasonable care that results in harm to another person.
Comparative Negligence
A rule that reduces damages based on the victim's own percentage of fault.
Contributory Negligence
A plaintiff's own carelessness that partially caused their injury, reducing their recovery.
This page is a plain-English reference and is not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change over time. For specific situations consult a licensed attorney.