Joint Tortfeasors

Joint tortfeasors are two or more persons who act together in committing a tort or whose independent acts combine to produce a single, indivisible injury to the plaintiff. In such cases, each wrongdoer is jointly and severally liable for the entire harm caused, meaning the injured party may recover full damages from any or all of them.
The concept of joint tortfeasors reflects the legal principle that when several persons participate in or contribute to a single wrongful act, they share collective responsibility for its consequences.

Meaning and Definition

The term tortfeasor means “a wrongdoer” — one who commits a tort. The expression joint tortfeasors refers to multiple wrongdoers acting in concert or independently contributing to the same damage.
According to Salmond on Torts:

“Persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when their separate wrongful acts have combined to produce the same damage, or when they have acted in furtherance of a common design.”

Thus, liability arises when:

1. The defendants act together with a common purpose, or
2. Their separate acts cause the same injury to the plaintiff.

Legal Basis of Liability

The doctrine of joint tortfeasors is based on two key legal ideas:

1. Common Design or Concerted Action – All those who assist, encourage, or participate in the commission of a tort are equally liable.
2. Indivisibility of Damage – When it is impossible to distinguish each person’s contribution to the harm, all are jointly liable for the total damage.

This ensures that the injured party is not deprived of compensation merely because of multiple wrongdoers.

Essential Conditions for Joint Tortfeasorship

1. Participation in a Common Design
   • The tort must be committed in pursuance of a common plan, agreement, or concerted action.
2. Contribution to the Same Injury
   • The wrongful acts of each tortfeasor must combine to produce the same damage.
3. Proximate Connection
   • There must be a close causal link between the conduct of each tortfeasor and the resulting harm.

If the wrongs are distinct and cause separate injuries, the wrongdoers are several tortfeasors, not joint ones.

Examples of Joint Tortfeasors

• Two persons jointly assaulting another during a fight.
• Employer and employee where the employer is vicariously liable for the employee’s negligence.
• Owner and driver of a car jointly responsible for a road accident.
• Conspirators publishing a defamatory article together.
• Industrial partners jointly maintaining a nuisance-producing factory.

In each case, more than one person contributes to the same wrongful act or damage.

Kinds of Joint Tortfeasors

1. Agency
   • When one person authorises another to commit a tort, both are liable — the principal because he authorised it, and the agent because he executed it.
   • Example: An employer instructing an employee to trespass on neighbouring land.
2. Vicarious Liability
   • Arises when one person is held liable for the torts of another due to their relationship (e.g., employer–employee, master–servant, partners).
   • Example: An employer is liable for the negligence of his employee committed in the course of employment.
3. Common Action or Design
   • When two or more persons act in concert with a common intention to commit a tort.
   • Example: Two persons jointly publishing a defamatory statement.

Legal Consequences

When multiple persons are held to be joint tortfeasors, the law applies the following consequences:

1. Joint and Several Liability
   • Each tortfeasor is liable for the entire damage. The plaintiff may sue all or any one of them and recover full compensation.
   • Once full compensation is received, the claim against others is barred (principle of satisfaction).
2. Right of Contribution
   • A tortfeasor who pays more than their share of damages may seek contribution from the others.
3. Single Cause of Action
   • The injury being indivisible, only one cause of action arises, though multiple defendants may be sued.
4. Release or Discharge of One Tortfeasor
   • At common law, release of one joint tortfeasor released all.
   • Modern law (including India) allows partial settlements without releasing others, provided it is expressly reserved.

Judicial Decisions

1. The Koursk Case (1924)
   • Facts: Two ships collided due to negligent navigation by both; one ship sank.
   • Held: The owners of both ships were joint tortfeasors as their combined negligence caused the same damage.
2. Brook v. Bool (1928)
   • Facts: Two persons negligently tested a gas pipe with a naked flame; the pipe exploded causing injury.
   • Held: Both were joint tortfeasors because they acted together and caused a single injury.
3. D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal (1997)
   • Held: In custodial violence cases, all officers participating in or facilitating the act are joint tortfeasors, liable collectively for constitutional tort.
4. Koursk v. P. & O. Steam Navigation Co. (1924)
   • The court reaffirmed that when multiple independent acts contribute to the same damage, the wrongdoers are jointly and severally liable.
5. M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (Oleum Gas Leak Case, 1987)
   • Multiple industrial entities involved in running hazardous operations were treated as joint tortfeasors under the principle of absolute liability for public harm caused by gas leakage.

Remedies Available to the Plaintiff

1. Single Joint Action
   • The plaintiff may bring one action against all tortfeasors jointly or against any one of them separately.
2. Full Compensation
   • The plaintiff may recover full damages from any one tortfeasor; apportionment among defendants is their internal matter.
3. Injunction
   • Courts may issue injunctions restraining all defendants from continuing the wrongful act.
4. Apportionment of Damages (Contribution)
   • After paying, one tortfeasor can claim proportional reimbursement from others.

Indian Position

The Indian law relating to joint tortfeasors follows English common law principles, adapted to Indian conditions. There is no statutory codification, but the doctrine is applied through judicial precedent and principles of justice, equity, and good conscience.
Indian courts have recognised:

• Joint and several liability for common wrongs.
• Right of contribution between tortfeasors (based on fairness).
• Applicability in cases of vicarious liability, nuisance, and constitutional torts.

Example: In Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Subhagwanti (1966), the municipal authority and contractors were held jointly liable for deaths caused by the collapse of a clock tower due to negligent maintenance.

Defences and Limitations

Joint tortfeasors may rely on general defences available in tort law, such as:

• Volenti non fit injuria (consent of the plaintiff).
• Contributory negligence by the plaintiff.
• Act of God or inevitable accident.

However, participation in a common design or wrongful act usually eliminates the possibility of complete exoneration.

Distinction Between Joint and Several Tortfeasors

Importance of the Doctrine

The principle of joint tortfeasors is vital because it:

• Protects victims from the difficulty of proving individual responsibility.
• Ensures full compensation even if one tortfeasor is insolvent.
• Discourages collusion and joint wrongdoing.
• Encourages fairness by allowing contribution among wrongdoers.