The reasons for distinction between joint and independent tortfeasors The position of such tortfeasors for their composite negligence has been discussed in a later Chapter. When two or more persons are responsible for a common damage (whether acting independently or jointly), they have been termed as composite tortfeasors. The courts in India have not necessarily followed the distinction between joint and independent tortfeasors, as recognized in England. They are either joint concurrent tortfeasors (briefly, joint tortfeasors), where there is not only a concurrence in the chain of causation leading to the single damage, but also (apart from non-feasance in breach of a joint duty) mental concurrence in some enterprise or several concurrent tortyfeasors ( independent tortfeasors), where the concurrence is exclusively in the realm of causation”. Glanville Williams, “Concurrent tortfeasors are tortfeasors whose torts concur (run together) to produce the same damage. Thus, the distinction between joint tortfeasors and independent tortfeasors lies in the fact that in the case of former, there is concurrence, not only in the ultimate cosnequences but also mental concurrence in doing the act in the case of latter, on the other hand, there is merely a concurrence in the ultimate result of the wrongful act independently done.
In the same way, for the wrongful act done by one partner in a partnership firm, in the course of performance of his duties as a partner, all the other partners in the firm are liable along with the wrongdoer. Similarly, when the servant commits a tort in the cause of employment of his master, both the master and the servant are liable as joint tortfeasors. If an agent does a wrongful act in the scope of his employment for his principal, the principal can be made liable along with the agent as a joint tortfeasor. The common examples of the same are : Principal and his agent, master and his servant and the partners in a partnership firm.
Persons having certain relationships are also treated as tortfeasors. Each one of them, in turn, applied damage to Z’s premises in this case, even through the act of A alone had caused the explosion, but both A and B were considered to be joint tortfeasors and thus held liable for the damage. Bool, A and B entered Z’s premises to search for an escape of gas. When two or more persons are engaged in a common pursuit and one of them in the course of and in furtherance of that commits is tort, both of them will be considered as joint tortfeasors and liable as such. Two or more persons are said to be joint tortfeasors when the wrongly act, which has resulted in a single damage, was done by them, not independently of one another, but in furtherance of a common design. It was thus further held that since they were severally liable, an action against one of them was no bar to an action against the other. The liability of the independent tortfeasors was not joint but only “several’ and, therefore, there were as many causes of action as the number of tortfeasors. It was held that they were not joint tortfeasors but only independent tortfeasors.
In The Koursk, due to independent negligence of the two ships, they collided with one another and as a consequence of the same, one of them ran into and sank a third vessel. For example, two motorists driving negligently and coming from the opposite direction collide and a pedestrian is crushed between the two cars, these motorists are independent tortfeasors. There is mere similarity of design on their part although they act quite independently of one another. There is no concerted action on the part of independent tortfeasors.
When the acts of two or more persons, acting independently, concur to produce a single damage, they are known as independent tortfeasors. When two or more persons commit some tort against the same plaintiff, they may be either independent joint tortfeasors. Independence and Joint Tortfeasors (Composite Tortfeasors)
0 kommentar(er)
