| Joint and several liability is the bane of trucking in | | | | disproportionately over assessed at trial is a |
| Pennsylvania. It exposes a minimally liable trucker | | | | standard plaintiff tactic designed to garner |
| to being leveraged into overpaying claims involving | | | | overpayment from trucking defendants. |
| a maximally liable four-wheeler that is minimally | | | | It's always the same threat, "Sure, maybe you |
| insured. The principle is disturbingly simple. If a jury | | | | don't owe that much, if the jury finds you 1% at |
| finds more than one defendant is responsible for | | | | fault,..." Do we have to given in? Not at all. We |
| the plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff can recover the | | | | have faced such threats, taken the cases to trial, |
| entire verdict amount from any of the responsible | | | | and been totally absolved by the jury. |
| defendants regardless of their percentage of fault. | | | | In one case, a fourteen year old passenger |
| For example, a drunk driver hits a truck and | | | | suffered a fractured ankle requiring a fusion when |
| severely injures his passenger. The jury finds the | | | | her mother struck our left-turning tractor trailer |
| drunk 99% at fault and the truck a token 1%. To | | | | at night on a rural road. Our driver was found not |
| send a message to the drunk driver, the jury | | | | negligent, precluding exposure for joint and several |
| awards $1 million to the plaintiff. The drunk driver | | | | liability with the mother whose coverage limit was |
| only has $15,000 in coverage. | | | | $25,000. |
| The plaintiff is out of luck, right? Wrong. | | | | In another, our left turning tractor trailer was |
| Under Pennsylvania's existing "joint and several" | | | | struck by a drunk driver, killing the passenger. In |
| law, the plaintiff can recover the entire $1 million | | | | this case, the jury found the driver and the |
| verdict from the truck. Even worse, the jury will | | | | passenger, who permitted him to drive his car, |
| never know the repercussions of their actions. | | | | totally at fault with no liability on our driver. |
| The effect is to expose well-insured trucking | | | | Bottom line-joint and several liability is an |
| defendants far beyond the true proportion of | | | | important element in evaluating a case involving |
| their liability. The federally mandated insurance | | | | multiple defendants, particularly where the others |
| coverage makes our trucks prime targets for | | | | have maximum liability and minimum coverage. |
| plaintiffs seeking a big payday. | | | | Joint and several liability must be considered in the |
| This potential scenario empowers plaintiffs to | | | | risk calculation, but does not mean automatic |
| leverage the potential overpayment in their | | | | capitulation. |
| pretrial dealings. The threat of being grossly and | | | | |