👀
Torts • Contribution
TORT#121
Legal Definition
The rule of contribution enables any tortfeasor who paid more than their share of damages to pursue a claim against other jointly liable parties for the excess paid.
Plain English Explanation
Imagine that a woman has a statue on her property worth $1000. One day, three men walking home from the bar decide to cause damage to it. The first one starts kicking the statue, the second one starts hitting it with a baseball bat, and the third shoves the statue causing it to tumble over and crack on the pavement. The laws primary concern is making the woman whole by allowing her to replace or fix her statue. This is why she is given the broad ability to sue each of the perpetrators jointly or individually for the $1000. Let's pretend that the man who kicked the statue paid the full $1000 all by himself.
At this point, the woman's life can continue on. She has the money to replace her statue, and is made whole. But what about the man who paid $1000? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean the law believes it is fair for him to pay for his friends' share of the stupidity. After all, kicking the statue probably caused the least amount of damage compared to a baseball bat or tipping it over onto the pavement. Thus, the man who paid the money to the victim can seek contribution from the other two based on their share of the damage.
A court might find that the man who hit the statue with a baseball bat caused 30% of the damage, and the man who tipped it over caused 60% of the damage. This would mean that the man who paid $1000 could seek $300 from the man with the bat, and $600 from the man who tipped over the statue, leaving his own out-of-pocket costs to be $100 (for the 10% damage his kicking caused).
At this point, the woman's life can continue on. She has the money to replace her statue, and is made whole. But what about the man who paid $1000? Just because he's a jerk doesn't mean the law believes it is fair for him to pay for his friends' share of the stupidity. After all, kicking the statue probably caused the least amount of damage compared to a baseball bat or tipping it over onto the pavement. Thus, the man who paid the money to the victim can seek contribution from the other two based on their share of the damage.
A court might find that the man who hit the statue with a baseball bat caused 30% of the damage, and the man who tipped it over caused 60% of the damage. This would mean that the man who paid $1000 could seek $300 from the man with the bat, and $600 from the man who tipped over the statue, leaving his own out-of-pocket costs to be $100 (for the 10% damage his kicking caused).
