Joint And Several Liability: New York vs. New Jersey

In New York, the doctrine of joint and several liability applies under certain conditions, meaning that each defendant can be held responsible for the total damages regardless of their individual share of negligence. This principle allows a plaintiff to recover the full amount of damages from one or more defendants, even if those defendants contributed in varying degrees to the harm. However, New York has modified this rule with the enactment of the Comparative Negligence law, which limits joint and several liability primarily to defendants found to be more than 50% responsible for the plaintiff's injuries, fostering a more equitable distribution of liability among defendants.

In New Jersey, joint and several liability also allows a plaintiff to pursue the full amount of damages from any one of several defendants. However, New Jersey has moved toward a comparative fault system with the passage of the Joint Tortfeasors Contribution Act, which means that if a defendant is found to be less than 60% liable for the plaintiff's harm, they are only responsible for their proportionate share of the damages awarded. This shift reflects New Jersey’s approach to balance the interests of plaintiffs and defendants while ensuring that primarily at-fault parties bear the greater burden of compensation.