=antrc170;3034192]You do not have to sue all five subjects. Each person committed a seperate crime against you (even if it was all part of the same scheme) and each person is seperately liable for their participation.
With that said, depending of the circumstances of any criminal chargesand details of the case, a single person may not be liable for the complete tort. For example, if the five people conspired to embezzle $100 and you sue a single person for that, the judge has every right (and probably will) only find the single person liable for $20 versus the entire amount.
Hmm?
I agree that multiple joint tortfeasors are individually and separately liable to the victim.
But disagree with your conclusion (as a general principle of law) that where the same tort is committed by a number of different persons causing the same damage that they are thus not jointly and severally liable to the victim for full reimbursement of the loss.
Meaning a victim is free to proceed against any or all and collect the entire jury award from any one or all.
_______________
All of which was so in the OP’s home state of Pennsylvania. That is, it was prior to the enactment of PA’s controversial Fair Share Act (2002), which has substantially modified formerly “pure” common law rules on the joint and several liability of joint tortfeasors.
Not surprising the Act is most confusing to me. (And it may not apply to intentional torts.) But where it is apposite, a PA joint tortfeasor is only responsible for the whole enchilada where the defendant’s participation in the commission of the tort is found to be 60% or more.
________________________
[*] For what is worth, the principles that apply to joint and several liability among joint tortfeasors logically assume that the defendants are in a better position than the plaintiff to apportion and divide liability among themselves.
Consequently, once liability has been shown the plaintiff may collect the damages from any one or more defendants. And the defendant’s are on his or her own to seek contribution in order to square the bill.
If it were as antrc mistakenly suggests – i.e., a judge could apportion a percentage of the total damages among the separate but jointly responsible defendants – it could punish the victim to the extent that some those defendants might be insolvent and judgment proof.
