35.1 Actual Cause, Joint & Several Liability, Contribution & Indemnity

35.1 Actual Cause, Joint & Several Liability, Contribution & Indemnity

Actual cause asks whether the defendant's negligence in fact contributed to the plaintiff's harm. When more than one person contributed, the next questions are how much each defendant owes the plaintiff and how defendants share the loss among themselves. NCBE's outline tells examinees to assume joint and several liability, with pure comparative negligence, unless a question states otherwise.

---

Actual Cause (Cause-in-Fact)

Actual cause connects the defendant's breached duty to the plaintiff's ultimate physical injury. Without an empirical link between breach and harm, liability cannot attach.

The "But-For" Test

The standard test for actual cause is the "but-for" test: Would the plaintiff's injury have occurred but for the defendant's negligent act or omission?

• If the injury would have occurred anyway, the defendant's act is not an actual cause.
• If the injury would have been prevented had the defendant exercised reasonable care, actual cause is established.

Special Tests for Complex Causation

When multiple actors or independent causes are present, the traditional but-for test breaks down, requiring specialized legal doctrines:

                                  ┌────────────────────────────────┐
                                  │      Actual Cause Tests        │
                                  └───────────────┬────────────────┘
                                                  │
         ┌────────────────────────┬───────────────┴────────────────┬────────────────────────┐
         ▼                        ▼                                ▼                        ▼
┌──────────────────┐    ┌──────────────────┐             ┌──────────────────┐     ┌──────────────────┐
│   But-For Test   │    │Substantial Factor│             │   Alternative    │     │   Market Share   │
│ (Standard rule)  │    │  (Kingston rule) │             │    Liability     │     │    Liability     │
├──────────────────┤    ├──────────────────┤             ├──────────────────┤     ├──────────────────┤
│Breach essential  │    │Multiple concurrent│            │Summers v. Tice:  │     │Sindell v. Abbott:│
│to occurrence of  │    │sufficient causes │             │2+ negligent actors│    │Fungible products │
│injury            │    │merge (2 fires)   │             │Burden shifts to D│     │Share of market = │
│                  │    │Both held liable  │             │Joint & several   │     │percentage fault  │
└──────────────────┘    └──────────────────┘             └──────────────────┘     └──────────────────┘

1. The Substantial Factor Test (Multiple Sufficient Causes):
   • Applies when two or more independent forces, acts, or fires combine to produce a single, indivisible injury, and either force alone would have been sufficient to cause the entire damage.
   • Under Kingston v. Chicago & N.W. Ry. (Wis. 1927), if a defendant negligently starts a fire that merges with another fire of human origin, and the combined blaze consumes the plaintiff's house, the defendant is liable if their fire was a substantial factor in producing the loss.
2. Alternative Liability (Summers v. Tice):
   • Applies when two or more defendants act negligently toward the plaintiff, but the resulting injury was caused by only one of them, and it is impossible to establish which defendant fired the fatal shot or caused the harm.
   • Summers v. Tice (Cal. 1948): Two hunters negligently fired shotguns simultaneously in the direction of the plaintiff; a birdshot pellet struck the plaintiff's eye. Because both defendants breached their duty of care, the court shifted the burden of proof to each defendant to prove that their pellet did not strike the plaintiff. If neither can exonerate themselves, both are held jointly and severally liable.
3. Market Share Liability (Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories):
   • Applies in products liability and toxic torts involving a fungible product manufactured identically by multiple companies (e.g., the anti-miscarriage drug DES). Where the plaintiff cannot identify the specific manufacturer due to the passage of decades, courts that accept the doctrine hold manufacturers liable in proportion to their share of the relevant market, unless a manufacturer proves it could not have made the product the plaintiff's mother took. Many states reject market share liability, and courts that accept it generally limit it to fungible products such as DES.

---

Joint and Several Liability, Contribution & Indemnity

When multiple tortfeasors cause harm to a plaintiff, procedural and substantive rules govern how damages are collected and allocated among the defendants.

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│                     ALLOCATION OF MULTI-PARTY LOSS                         │
├────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┤
│  JOINT & SEVERAL LIABILITY                                                 │
│  - Plaintiff can collect 100% of indivisible damages from ANY defendant.   │
│  - Multiple tortfeasors cause a single indivisible injury.                 │
│                                                                            │
│  CONTRIBUTION (Sharing of Loss)                                            │
│  - Shifts proportional excess among jointly liable tortfeasors.            │
│  - Allocated based on COMPARATIVE FAULT percentages.                       │
│  - NOT available to intentional wrongdoers.                                │
│                                                                            │
│  INDEMNITY (100% Shifting of Loss)                                         │
│  - Shifts ENTIRE financial burden to the party who should justly bear it.  │
│  - Classic grounds: (1) Vicarious liability; (2) Products retailer chain. │
└────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

1. Joint and Several Liability

Under joint and several liability, when two or more tortfeasors combine to produce a single, indivisible injury, each tortfeasor is independently liable to the plaintiff for the entire full amount of damages (100%).

• Plaintiff's Recovery: The plaintiff can choose to execute the entire judgment against one defendant, split collection among them, or sue all together.
• Single Satisfaction Rule: The plaintiff is entitled to only one full satisfaction of the judgment. Once the plaintiff receives 100% of the damages, the judgment is satisfied, and no further collection from other defendants is permitted.
• Release vs. Satisfaction:
  • Release: At common law, releasing one joint tortfeasor released all of them. Today, a release or settlement with one tortfeasor does not discharge the others unless the agreement so provides. How much the nonsettling defendants' liability is reduced depends on the jurisdiction's approach, described below.
  • Satisfaction: The actual physical receipt of full compensation; permanently discharges all tortfeasors.

2. Contribution (Proportional Loss Sharing)

Contribution is an equitable remedy available among joint tortfeasors who are jointly and severally liable:

• Mechanism: A defendant who pays more than their proportional equitable share of the judgment may bring a claim for contribution against the other joint tortfeasors to recover the excess.
• Modern Allocation: Under modern comparative fault rules, contribution is apportioned strictly based on each tortfeasor's percentage of comparative fault as determined by the jury.
• Intentional Tortfeasors Barred: Under the traditional rule and the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, an intentional tortfeasor may not obtain contribution from negligent co-defendants.

3. Indemnity (100% Shifting of Loss)

Unlike contribution, which divides loss proportionally, indemnity shifts 100% of the entire economic burden from a defendant who paid the judgment to another party who should equitably bear the entire loss.

Indemnity is commonly available in three situations:

1. Vicarious Liability: An employer held vicariously liable under respondeat superior for an employee's tort is entitled to 100% indemnity against the negligent employee.
2. Products Liability Distribution Chain: An innocent retail seller or wholesaler held strictly liable for selling a defective product is entitled to 100% indemnity against the upstream commercial manufacturer who designed or produced the defect.
3. Contractual Indemnity: An express contractual hold-harmless agreement where one party agrees to indemnify another for tort liability.

---

More on Causation and Apportionment

Loss of Chance

Under the traditional all-or-nothing approach, a patient whose original chance of survival was 50% or less cannot prove that a doctor's negligence more likely than not caused the death. Many states now allow recovery for the lost chance itself (Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Wash. 1983). Under the common proportional approach, damages equal the full value of the claim multiplied by the percentage of the chance lost (Matsuyama v. Birnbaum, Mass. 2008). Other states reject the doctrine.

Divisible and Indivisible Harm

• Divisible harm: When the harm can reasonably be divided—for example, when two factories each kill an identifiable portion of a neighbor's fish, or two drivers cause separate injuries in separate collisions—each defendant is liable only for the part it caused.
• Indivisible harm: When the harm cannot reasonably be divided, such as a single death or a house destroyed by merged fires, the tortfeasors are jointly and severally liable.
• Burden of proof: When several defendants' tortious conduct combined to cause harm, a defendant who claims the harm can be divided generally bears the burden of proving how to divide it.
• Concert of action: People who act together under a common plan, such as drivers engaged in a street race, are jointly liable for harm caused by any of them.

Modern Limits on Joint and Several Liability

Many states have abolished or limited joint and several liability. Some make each defendant liable only for its percentage of fault; others keep joint and several liability only for defendants whose fault exceeds a threshold or only for economic damages; and some reallocate an insolvent defendant's share among the remaining parties. On the MBE, apply joint and several liability unless the question says otherwise.

Effect of Settlements

For example, suppose a plaintiff's damages are $100,000, Defendant A is 60% at fault, and Defendant B is 40% at fault, and the plaintiff settles with B for $20,000. Under the pro tanto approach, A owes $80,000. Under the comparative-share approach, A owes $60,000, and the plaintiff bears the cost of having settled cheaply with B.