Warning

Info

Warning

Info

Warning

Info

LSDefine

Simple English definitions for legal terms

Several liability

Read a random definition: venditor

A quick definition of Several liability:

Several liability is a way that courts decide who is responsible for paying damages when more than one person is at fault for an accident. There are different types of several liability, but basically it means that each person is only responsible for the part of the damages that they caused. This is different from joint-and-several liability, where one person could end up paying for everything if the others can't pay. Several liability can be fairer, but it can also mean that the person who was hurt doesn't get all the money they need to pay for their injuries. Some states have made their own rules to try to make things more fair for everyone.

A more thorough explanation:

Several liability is a legal term used to describe a system that courts use to determine responsibility for damages in cases where multiple parties are at fault. This system can take different forms, such as pure several liability or joint-and-several liability.

In a pure several liability system, each defendant is only responsible for the damages they caused. For example, if two drivers caused a car accident and one was found to be 60% responsible while the other was 40% responsible, the injured party could only recover 40% of the damages from the second driver.

In a joint-and-several liability system, each defendant is responsible for the entire amount of damages, even if they were only partially at fault. For example, if three drivers caused a car accident and one was found to be 40% responsible, another 30%, and the third 30%, the injured party could recover the full amount of damages from any of the three drivers, regardless of their individual level of fault.

Many states have created mixed systems that combine elements of both pure several liability and joint-and-several liability. For example, some states only hold defendants jointly and severally liable if the plaintiff was not negligent, while others only hold a defendant jointly and severally liable if they were responsible for a certain percentage of the damages.

In some states, if the plaintiff is found to be partially at fault for the damages, they may not be able to recover any compensation. This is known as contributory negligence and is still used in five states and the District of Columbia.

Imagine that three construction companies are working on a building project and a worker is injured due to their combined negligence. Company A was responsible for 40% of the negligence, Company B was responsible for 30%, and Company C was responsible for 30%. If the worker sues for $100,000 in damages and only Company C is able to pay, under pure several liability, the worker would only be able to recover $30,000. However, under joint-and-several liability, the worker could recover the full $100,000 from Company C, even though they were only 30% responsible.

This example illustrates the difference between pure several liability and joint-and-several liability and how they can impact the amount of compensation a plaintiff can receive.

Severable contract | Severance

Warning

Info

General

General chat about the legal profession.
main_chatroom
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
Dkk
22:34
Crying Tiger, best Thai dish.
damn im so hungry all i had today was a curry tonkatsu and buldak
and it was a lil baby noodle cup
vvv hungry
22:36
curry tonkatsu so yummeh
22:36
whats even open rn? pizza?
CTB is it i think
22:37
is collegetown pizza not open
22:37
i used to get a slice from there or wings over at like 1am after my shift at the restaurant
Dkk
22:48
Ross Ulbricht free. God Bless Trump. Huge win.
JeremyFragrance
22:54
agreed
texaslawhopefully
22:55
This is an interesting read: https://thedispatch.com/article/birthright-citizenship-trump-implications/
Dkk
23:01
I mean, idk how it's possible to end birth right citizenship without amending the constitution because to me the 14th amendment is pretty clear about it.
ross ulbricht tried to hire a hitman to kill 5 people
i am not that sympathetic to him
Dkk
23:04
@KnowledgeableRitzyWasp: That might have been an FBI agent. It was most likely him and he was most likely doing it to retrieve stolen funds that corrupt FBI agents stole, but yeah moral gray area but me personally, cool with hitmen. It's not like it is uncommon to hire hitmen. I don't think the action itself is necessarily wrong but the intent behind it can be.
Dkk
23:05
Like, Boeing whistblowers being killed by hitmen = wrong but a guy hiring hitmen to retrieve stolen funds = good to me.
texaslawhopefully
23:05
@Dkk: Yeah, for sure. My guess is it'll go to SCOTUS and it'll be 8-1 or 7-2, saying that EO was unconstitutional.
Dkk
23:06
Indeed. I need a count for how many exectuive orders he has signed and how many already have pending lawsuits.
i've been away for a while what were the most recent waves? any this week?
lilypadfrog
8:12
hi shawties
lilypadfrog
8:16
who’s getting into a law school today raise your hand
jackfrost11770
8:28
I sure hope so at this point
lilypadfrog
8:28
woooo
lilypadfrog
8:28
jackfrost for law school
jackfrost11770
8:29
LILYPADFROG FOR LAW SCHOOL
jackfrost11770
8:29
I really just love how now there's an executive order that says I don't exist as a person
jackfrost11770
8:29
Do I not have to pay taxes now? Loans? What now
lilypadfrog
8:34
you should probably assume this means your law school will be free
GreyCeaselessMammoth
8:34
i love that there's an executive order that we're all female now
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.