02.04.2013 Views

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

Odger's English Common Law

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Chapter XV.<br />

joint torts and civil conspiracies.<br />

Joint Torts.<br />

So far we have assumed that the tort on which the action<br />

is founded is the act of a single individual. Often, however,<br />

injury is caused to the plaintiff by the joint act of two<br />

or more persons. These may either act in concert, each<br />

taking some part in the proceeding, or one of them may do<br />

the wrongful act at the bidding of the others. In either<br />

case the wrongful act is a joint tort; and all persons con-<br />

cerned in it are liable jointly and severally for all consequent<br />

damage. 1<br />

It is not necessary that each tortfeasor should be present and personally<br />

take part in the actual commission of the wrong. If a master commands<br />

his servant to commit a trespass or assault and the servant does so in the<br />

absence of his master, both are joint tortfeasors. That his master ordered<br />

him to do so will be no defence. " For the warrant of no man, not even<br />

of the King himself, can excuse the doing of an illegal act ; for although<br />

the commanders are trespassers, so are also the persons who did the fact." 2<br />

And if judgment be given against the servant, he cannot recover any<br />

contribution from his master ;<br />

and any previous promise to indemnify him<br />

against the consequences of his wrongful act will be void. 3<br />

A person who is injured by a joint tort has a right of<br />

action against each of those who were concerned in its<br />

commission. But he is not bound to sue them all ; he may,<br />

if he prefers, sue only one or two of them, and the liability<br />

of the others will be no defence for those sued and will not<br />

mitigate the damages recoverable in respect of the joint tort.<br />

1 Co. Litt. 232 a ; 1 Wms. Saund. 291 f ; Sutton v. Clarke (1815), 6 Taunt. 29 ;<br />

Oreenlands v. Wilmshurst, #c, [1916] 2 A. C. 15.<br />

2 Per cur. in Sands v. Chud and others (1693), 3 Lev. at -p. 352. And see<br />

Mill v. Hawker and others (1875), L. R. 10 Ex. 92 ; Att.-G»n. v. he Wiidon, [1906]<br />

2 Ch. 106 ; Cory % Son, Ltd. v. Lambton and Hetton Collieries (1916), 86 L. J. K. B.<br />

401.<br />

* Shachell v. Rosier (1836), 2 Bing. N. C. 634.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!