1. Allocation of liability among multiple defendants…. Joint Tortfeasors
joint & several liability
contribution & indemnity
satisfaction & discharge
releases
apportionment
Relationship to comparative fault

2. General rule of Joint & Several Liability?
Joint & Several Liability Issue addressed is who is liable for what to ∏?
General rule of Joint & Several Liability?
Each D is jointly liable with all other Ds for all damages and each D is also individually liable for full amount: P can get compensation from any one or all as group
(rule favoring P’s full compensation)
Basis for joint liability (when does it apply)
1stDs act in concert to create “joint risk” (see note 5, p. 376)
2nd  Note 7: Failure to perform common or shared duty
e.g. elevator falls (landlord/ tenant/ repair co.)…may include vicarious liability relationships (e.g., partners)
3rd Note 8: Independent acts of negligence combine to create indivisible injury (not capable of apportionment)
distinguish from procedural “joinder” of parties and claims (see notes 2, 3, p. 375)

3. Case Illustration Bierczynski v. Rogers
Basis for Joint & Several Liability?
Assume:  
$100,000 in damages  in this case means….what?
If Race has no $?
If ∏ hates Rodgers and is best bud with Race?
Contrast: from “apportionment” acting independently D1 breaks P’s leg, D2 breaks P’s nose…
The evidence shows which D caused what damage…that is, the damages can reasonably be apportioned between them NB: the D’s act independently…what if they act in concert?

4. Joint & Several Liability Under Comparative Negligence
Comparative fault  accounting for contributory negligence of P by reducing damages by percentage of fault
If Jury must assess relative fault of P why not also for other defendants?
D1: 60% fault, D2: 30% fault, P: 10% fault
How might this effect J & S liability?
Arguments for and against eliminating J & S
Key policy problem:
Risk of missing or impecunious D: Who should bear this risk
Note facts of Bartlett case (379)…why does J & S apply to facts? What does Court decide?
Split among jurisdictions over retaining J & S

5. Satisfaction & Discharge
General Rule?
Recovery from any or all- but only one satisfaction of claim (tie in with next subject – releases)
Bundt v. Embro
What is the “one satisfaction” mean?
Verdict amount
or Settlement – but settlements may be for only part of P’s damages
Multiple judgments?...
Yes, but possible Issue Preclusion
Partial Satisfaction- Note #4
-must credit other ∆’s…which might effect settlement potential….but what if no J & S?
Collateral Sources- Note # 10

6. Settlements & Release of Joint Tortfeasors
Common law rule:
Release one of J.T. releases all
What is a “release”?
Legal effect? Surrenders ∏’s claim
Distinct from “satisfaction”?
How is “covenant not to sue” different?
K’tual promise not to sue which does not technically release claim against D
Modern approach
Mary Carter Agreements

7. Common Law Rules on Contribution
Ds may seek contribution from other Ds who paid less than their share…which is?
Traditional Rule for dividing damages among joint ∆’s: if there are 4 ∆s & 100,000 judgments?
pro rata apportionment b/w Ds
J & S  who pays what to P versus Contribution how D’s divide up…between Ds
What if a state eliminates J & S? Effect on contribution?

8. Contribution & settlement
A right of contribution will affect settlements…how?
What if ∆1 settles for $1000 but later Judgment against ∆2 for $100,000?
Can ∆2 seek contribution from ∆1?
If so, why would ∆1 settle? 
What if D1 settles for $100,000? Can he seek contributions for other non-settling Ds?
Knell v. Feltman: when can D seek contribution…?
what if P doesn’t sue D2?
C/L rule against Contribution among joint tortfeasors…intentional torts
Under Fla. Law? (2)(d) and (5)(b)
Yellow Cab (immune D)

9. Indemnity
Distinct from Contribution in that entire liability of D …is shifted to actual tortfeasor (or by K’tual promise)
Why?
Liability imposed by law/relationship e.g. vicarious, dangerous instrumentally, innocent partner…not based on D’s conduct
Contribution is premised on D’s own wrongful causing of injury …not merely relationship