Let’s say I sue Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Yoshihiro for $20 million.
If the judge/jury find in my favor, is each of them on the hook for $4 million?
If Matthew wants to settle and the others do not, does Matthew just pay me $4 million while the rest go to trial, on the hook for the remaining $16 million? Or must all parties agree to settle? Will the judge/jury be tasked with determining each defendant’s degree of culpability?
IANAL, but under Joint and several liability each could be responsible for the full amount.
IANAL:
Are Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Yoshihiro part of the same entity (e.g. a business)? If so, I think they are sued collectively as a business entity. Assuming you win, a judgement is issued and you get your $20 million. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Yoshihiro can fight each other over who pays how much of that. Chances are the business pays for it and not the individuals.
Or, did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Yoshihiro each individually punch you? I am thinking you have to sue each individually. Maybe if there was a conspiracy among them to punch you a court might make it one case…I am not sure about that at all though.
The OP’s question is complicated, and there are various rules for covering this type of problem.
It really depends of too many variables to give a simple answer.
Typically, one defendant can settle and the rest can go to trial. Sometimes, that can’t happen, as it would defeat joint and several liability. Defendants can sometimes sue each other for “contribution.” Juries sometimes allocate percentage of fault between the defendants.
In a typical case in Washington, if one defendant settled for $4M, the jury would not hear about that, and would allocate fault between the remaining defendants and the defendant that settled. And the jury would determine the amount of damages. Each defendant would be responsible for their percentage of the total amount of damages. There may or may not be joint and several liability (causing the one with deeper pockets to make up for any defendant who couldn’t pay their share).
The $4M deal remains in place, even the jury found that party much less or much more at fault.
Here’s the primary statute that controls in Washington, if anyone is interested. NOTE, this is one area that varies considerably by jurisdiction.
As others have said, the answer will depend on the nature of your claim and the reasons why Matthew, Mark, Luke and John all have a liability to you. But in the simplest and commonest case, MML&J will be “jointly and severally liable”. If your claim is for $10m and you get judgement against MML&J you can enforce your claim against whichever one or more of them you please. You recover your $10m from whoever it’s easiest for you to recover it from (hint: it’s the one with insurance or, failing that, the one with the most assets) and then MML&J can embark on further legal proceedings among themselves, if they wish, as to whether and how whoever had to pay out can recover contributions to the cost from the others. You won’t be involved in those proceedings and don’t care about them.
I am not a lawyer, but I’m in the insurance industry, where suits against multiple parties are common. And the answer depends not only on the nature of your claim and the reasons why the parties might be liable, but also on the state and on prior judicial rulings in the state for similar cases. The outcomes might be all over the place comparing one state to another.
This question was inspired by the lawsuit against Afroman, by the cops who raided his home. For those who don’t know, Afroman used his own security footage of the cops carrying out the raid, including one chubby one who looked wistfully at Afroman’s lemon pound cake. Long story short, Afroman made songs/music videos of the videos and in other ways profited from using the footage on social media, for merchandising, and whatnot. Named in the suit are Google (which owns YouTube), TikTok (I believe), Afroman himself, and probably others. So Google would be in a position to cut a check to make the matter go away, whereas for Afroman himself, should a judge/jury find against him (they won’t), he’d be in it pretty deep.
I recall a discussion about this years ago that centered on the “joint and severally liable” situation.
Short answer was, unless otherwise ordered, if several defendants are jointly found liable, you can chase any or all until the total is paid, and they can then argue (or sue) among themselves to equalize th balanace.
This was emntioned in the context of medial malractice suits. The lawyer would drag in the doctor, the nurse, and the hospital they worked for, and sue for (let’s say) $10M. The doctor and/or nurse are there because it’s easier to prove they were the cause of the alleged malpractice, so easier to win the case. The hospital is there because it employed them, and it coincidentally can spring for $10M even if the nurse can’t. (And the doctor’s malpractice insurance may not cover all $10M). The article mentioned under “joint and several liability” even if the hospital was only 1% at fault, it too would be liable for the whole amount just like the others. Obviously, the limit to collect would be the total judgement, not $10M x 3.
Presumably before trial, any individual defendant can come to a settlement with the plaintiff and be dropped from the suit. So then the suit is basically “Matthew was part of the problem but settled, but the rest are arguing they are not liable, so we are suing them so the court can decide…”
the court could also, of course, determine that some of the defendants are not part of the liability - not their fault. (“the nurse did exactly what she was supposed to do.”)
IANAL but I would imagine - first, the trial detemines if in fact the defendants have any liability. If they lose, then determine damages - if the other plaintiffs can argue “Matthew was 90% responsible and settled for $4M so we should be jointly liable for no more than 10% so $400,000.”
IANAL so I have no idea under what circumstances multiple defendants would not be jointly liable.
I’m sure trials are fun for those not on the hook.