There have been various cases in which the courts have held that regardless of the extent of apportionment between joint tort feasors, the liability of the tort feasors would remain joint and several. To quote a few, in the case of Khenyi v. New Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors., the SC held that “In cases, all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability ”. Similarly, the High Court of Kerela in the case of Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation v. Shoby Paul also held that “Even if all the wrongdoers are made party to the proceedings and the Court renders a finding as, to the extent of negligence of each wrongdoer, their liability to the injured would remain joint and several”. Even in the United States, the U.S. District Court Northern District of Georgia in the case of US Securities Exchange Commission v. Peter et al., held that “joint and several liability is appropriate in securities laws when two or more individuals or entities have a close relationship and engage in illegal conduct”. Thus, in cases where persons have a close relationship and engage in illegal conduct relating to the securities market, they can be held liable jointly and severally, even if the damage is divisible.
Source: Barandbench
