how does joint and several liability work 
joint and several liability favors the plaintiff suing for damages because it empowers them to pursue full payment if necessary from the party with the deepest pockets if the others named cannot pay if all of the parties involved are insolvent and uninsured then the plaintiff collects nothing joint and several liability differs in law from comparative fault in which multiple parties are assigned responsibility for a portion of the damages in relation to the degree of fault that they bear for the harm in such cases a plaintiff may be left in the position of seeking damages from the party that is least able to pay comparative fault is sometimes called pure several liability it is more common in the united states than joint and several liability most u s states have limited the use of joint and several liability or have developed a hybrid approach for example a state might allow joint and several liability to apply only to parties who are found responsible for more than 50 of the damage done the hybrid approach was adopted as a means of reforming a system that appeared to encourage some plaintiffs to add a single party with deep pockets such as a large corporation to a suit to get an outsized award criticism of joint and several liabilityas noted joint and several liability tends to benefit the plaintiff as it increases the chances that all of the damages awarded can be collected most states in the u s limit the use of joint and several responsibility or employ a hybrid approach on the other hand it may be considered unfair to a party who bears only a minor responsibility for an adverse event to bear an outsized financial loss because of it example of a joint and several liability suita joint and several liability case could be launched on behalf of workers who became ill after working at multiple job sites where they were exposed to harmful materials for example they might be construction workers who suffer physical ailments that can be attributed to contact with a toxic substance that was present in materials used in all of their workplaces the workers might argue that inadequate precautions were taken by several employers who were responsible for worker safety at various sites where they worked 