Also known as: rights to contribution · right of contribution · contribution right
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A right held by one joint tortfeasor who has paid more than an equitable share of a common liability to recover the excess from other joint tortfeasors who are also liable for the same harm to the same plaintiff. The right arises from common liability in tort for an indivisible injury and is limited to the amount paid beyond the paying tortfeasor's own equitable share.
Rhapsody Entertainment and Royal Crest Hotels were both found negligent for toxic runoff that contaminated a town's groundwater. Rhapsody paid the entire judgment after the jury held both companies jointly liable. Rhapsody then sued Royal Crest to recover a portion of the payment based on their shared responsibility for the single harm.
Raphael Rivera and Rita Russell were both found negligent for scaffolding that collapsed and injured a pedestrian. After a jury held both jointly liable for the same harm, Raphael paid the full judgment. Raphael then sued Rita to recover the amount he paid beyond his equitable share of the common liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Riley Rivera and Renee Rogers both participated in an event that injured Rosalind Reed. Riley acted with intent while Renee was merely negligent. After Riley paid the full judgment, he sought contribution from Renee. The court denied the claim because Riley intentionally caused the harm.
Radiance Media and Regal Apparel were held jointly liable for a product defect that harmed a consumer. Regal Apparel held a contractual right of indemnity against Radiance Media. After Regal Apparel paid the judgment, it attempted to obtain contribution from Radiance Media. The court held that the indemnity right eliminated any contribution claim between them.
Rhapsody Entertainment and Royal Crest Hotels co-sponsored an event where a spectator was injured due to combined negligence. Rhapsody paid the entire judgment. Rhapsody then brought an action against Royal Crest to reallocate the loss according to each party's equitable share of responsibility for the single injury.
Two banks were held secondarily liable under federal securities law for the same investor losses. One bank paid the full judgment and then sought contribution from the other bank. The court addressed whether contribution was available among parties jointly responsible for the identical harm.
The right arises when two or more persons become liable in tort to the same person for the same harm. It exists even without a judgment against all tortfeasors. One tortfeasor who pays more than an equitable share may recover the excess from the others.
Supporting sources
Yes. The paying tortfeasor may recover the amount paid in excess of its equitable share. The right is limited to that excess and cannot require any tortfeasor to pay more than its own equitable share.
Supporting sources
No. The right of contribution does not exist in favor of any tortfeasor who has intentionally caused the harm. This bar prevents intentional wrongdoers from shifting loss to others even when multiple parties share liability.
Supporting sources
When one tortfeasor holds a right of indemnity against another, neither may obtain contribution from the other. The indemnity relationship displaces the contribution doctrine entirely.
Supporting sources
Yes. A settling tortfeasor who discharges the entire claim by paying more than its equitable share may still pursue contribution. The absence of a judgment against other tortfeasors does not defeat the right.
Supporting sources
…of § 10(b), we have decided questions about the elements of the 10b-5 private liability scheme: for example, whether there is a right to contribution, what the statute of limitations is, whether there is a reliance requirement, and whether there is an in pari delicto defense. See Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau ,…