| STATE |
JOINT and SEVERAL LIABILITY STATUS |
STATUTE |
DATE |
| ALABAMA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| ALASKA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
Proposition 2 |
1988 |
| ARKANSAS |
Defendants responsible for their share of negligence; Legislature passed as part of tort reform package, which included bills that capped punitive and general damages. Civil Justice Reform Act signed into law on March 26. |
Act 649 |
2003 |
| ARIZONA |
Defendants responsible for their share of negligence, except those who act in concert to commit tortuous act. Constitutionality upheld in Church v. Rawson Drug, 842 P.2d 1355 (Ariz. App. 1992). |
Ariz. Stat. § 12-2506 |
1987 |
| CALIFORNIA |
Defendants responsible for their share of negligence for non-economic (general) damages but jointly and severally responsible for special damages. Constitutionality upheld in Evangelatos v. Superior Court, 753 P.2d 585 (Cal. 1988). |
Cal. Civ. Code § 1431.2 |
1986 |
| COLORADO |
Defendants responsible for their share of negligence, except those who act in concert to commit tortuous act. |
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 13-21-111.5 |
1986 |
| CONNECTICUT |
Defendants responsible for their share of negligence, except where the liable party's share of the judgment is uncollectible after one year. |
Conn. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 52-572h |
1986 |
| DELAWARE |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| FLORIDA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except where defendant's percentage of fault exceeds that of the plaintiff, then defendant is responsible for all of the special damages awarded up to $2 million in some cases. Statute modified after high court decisions concerning the 1986 bar of the application of the rule of joint and several liability. |
Fla. Stat. Ann. § 768.81 |
1999, 1986 |
| GEORGIA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except where plaintiff found to have no fault. |
Ga. Code Ann.§ 51-12-33 |
1987 |
| HAWAII |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except where plaintiff found to have no fault in wrongful death claims in products liability; strict liability torts and intentional torts where defendant is found more than 25% responsible. |
|
1989 |
| IDAHO |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except those who act in concert to commit tortuous act and then defendants only need pay twice their percentage of liability. |
Idaho Code Ann.§ 6-803 |
2003, 1990, 1987 |
| ILLINOIS |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. Legislation passed in 1986 to bar application of joint and several liability found unconstitutional in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 689 N.E.2d 1057 (Ill. 1997). |
|
|
| INDIANA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
Ind. Code Ann.§ 34-51-2-8 |
1996 |
| IOWA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence except those defendants found more than 50% at fault; are then found jointly and severally liable for special damages. |
Iowa Code Ann. § 668.4 |
1997, 1985 |
| KANSAS |
Case law finds defendants responsible only for their share of negligence in the recovery of all damages. |
Brown v. Keill, 580 P.2d 867, 874 (Kan. 1978) |
|
| KENTUCKY |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 411.182 |
1996, 1988 |
| LOUISIANA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
La. Civ. Code arts 1804 |
1996 |
| MAINE |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| MARYLAND |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| MASSACHUSETTS |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. Only in claims against accountants otherwise each defendant is held jointly and severally liable. |
Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. Ch. 231B |
2001 |
| MICHIGAN |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable, except for employers vicarious liability and medical malpractice claims in which plaintiff is found to have no fault. |
Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.6304(4), 600.6312 |
1995, 1986 |
| MINNESOTA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable, except where defendant found less than 15% negligent is jointly liable for no more than four times of fault. The Minnesota House on Feb. 24 passed Legislation that would hold defendants responsible only for their share of negligence when their percentage of liability is less than 50%. The bill was laid over by the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 11. |
Minn. Stat, 2000 Sect 604.02 |
1988 |
| MISSISSIPPI |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence for special damages, except where defendant is found more than 30% responsible; then Defendant can be liable for up to 50% of the special damages. |
Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7(2) |
2002, 1989 |
| MISSOURI |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence when plaintiff assessed a portion of fault. But applies joint and several rule when plaintiff is not assessed with liability. State lawmakers passed legislation that included provisions barring joint and several liability in most cases. |
Mo. Stat. § 537.067 |
1987 |
| MONTANA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except defendants found more than 50% liable or if defendants acted in concert. |
Mont. Code Ann. § 27-1-705 |
1997, 1995, 1987 |
| NEBRASKA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except those who act in concert to commit tortuous act. |
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-21,185.10 |
1991 |
| NEVADA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence for general damages except in cases involving toxic waste, intentional torts and where parties acted in concert.In 2002, the Legislature barred application of joint and several liability in the recovery of general damages for medical liability claims. |
Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann § 41.141 |
2002, 1987 |
| NEW HAMPSHIRE |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence if they are found to be less than 50% at fault. |
N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann.§ 507:7-e |
1989 |
| NEW JERSEY |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence if they are found to be less than 60% at fault. If more than 60%, defendants held joint and severally liable for non-economic (general) damages except in toxic torts. |
N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2A:15-5.3 |
1995, 1987 |
| NEW MEXICO |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence except with a finding of intentional infliction of injury, toxic torts, product defect and some vicarious liability situations. |
N.M. Stat. Ann. § 41-3A-1 |
1987 |
| NEW YORK |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except when found more than 50% liable. Legislature considering a measure that would bar joint and several liability in most situations. |
N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. and R. §§ 1601-1602 |
1986 |
| NORTH DAKOTA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except for intentional torts where defendants acted in concert. |
N.D. Cent Code § 32-03.2-02 |
1987 |
| NORTH CAROLINA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| OKLAHOMA |
Case law finds defendants responsible only for their share of negligence when plaintiff found partially negligent. Legislature considering measure to bar joint and several statutorily. |
Anderson v. O'Donohue, 677 P.2d 648 (Okla. 1983). |
1983 |
| OHIO |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence for general damages but are jointly and severally liable for special damages if defendant held more than 50% at fault. Joint and several liability, however, was part of a tort reform package found unconstitutional in Ohio Academy of Trial Lawyers v. Sheward, 715 N.E.2d 1062 (Ohio 1999) |
|
1996, 1987 |
| OREGON |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence except when court finds after a year that judgment is uncollectible and defendant is found more than 15% at fault. |
|
1995, 1987 |
| PENNSYLVANIA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence except when defendant found more than 60% liable, determined to have acted intentionally, or in toxic torts or drunk driving actions. |
|
2002 |
| RHODE ISLAND |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. However, legislature is considering a bill that would bar joint and several liability for defendants found to be less than 25% responsible. |
R.I. Genlaws § 10-6-2 |
1997 |
| SOUTH CAROLINA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable However, Legislature is considering a bill that bars joint and several liability. |
|
|
| SOUTH DAKOTA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except when defendant found more than 50% liable; damages limited to twice the allocated percentage of fault. |
S.D. Codified Laws Ann. § 15-8-15.1 |
1987 |
| TENNESSEE |
Case law finds defendants responsible only for their share of negligence in the recovery of all damages. |
McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992). |
|
| TEXAS |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except when defendants are found more than 51% at fault. Legislature is considering bill that would bar joint and several liability in all cases. |
|
1995, 1987 |
| UTAH |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
Utah Code Ann.§ 78-27-40 |
1999, 1986 |
| VERMONT |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
|
1985 |
| VIRGINIA |
Each defendant held jointly and severally liable. |
|
|
| WASHINGTON |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence if plaintiff found partially at fault. Except where defendants found to have acted in concert. However, state Senate passed legislation that would bar joint and several liability. Measure being considered by the House. |
Wash. Rev. Code Ann.§ 4.22.070(1)(b) |
1986 |
| WEST VIRGINIA |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence, except when found more than 25% at fault. |
W.V. Code Ann.§ 55-7B-9 |
2002 |
| WISCONSIN |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence Except when found more than 51% at fault. |
Wis. Stat. Ann. § 895.045(1) |
1995 |
| WYOMING |
Defendants responsible only for their share of negligence. |
Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 1-1-109(e) |
1994, 1986 |
| (The National Law Journal, May 2003) |
