Joint And Several Liability: Illinois vs. Pennsylvania

In Illinois, joint and several liability allows a plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from any one or more of the defendants, irrespective of their individual share of fault. This approach encourages accountability and ensures that plaintiffs are compensated even if one defendant is unable to pay. However, under the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, defendants found to be less than 25% at fault can avoid joint liability and are responsible only for their proportionate share of damages, a shift introduced to limit the exposure of minimally liable defendants.

The statute maintains that if one of the joint tortfeasors is found to be insolvent or if a judgment cannot be recovered from them, the other defendants remain jointly liable for the full amount owed to the plaintiff. This reinforces the plaintiffs' position while introducing a fairness element in determining liability amongst defendants.

Pennsylvania follows a modified version of joint and several liability established through the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. Historically, all joint tortfeasors were jointly and severally liable, but legislation has since introduced a proportionate liability system. If a defendant’s share of negligence is determined to be 60% or greater, they can still be held jointly liable for the full amount of damages awarded. Conversely, if a defendant's share of liability is less than 60%, their responsibility is limited to their respective percentage of fault, thus applying a more equitable distribution of liability overall.

This change aims to protect defendants who are not substantially at fault, creating more fairness in damage assessments. Nevertheless, it also means that a plaintiff may need to pursue multiple parties to secure a full recovery, depending on the allocation of fault among the defendants.