Define: Concurrent Tortfeasors

Concurrent Tortfeasors
Concurrent Tortfeasors
Quick Summary of Concurrent Tortfeasors

Individuals or entities who act in concert to cause harm or injury to another person or entity are known as concurrent tortfeasors. They share joint responsibility for the harm caused and can be held liable for damages in a court of law. For instance, if two drivers engage in a race on a public road and cause an accident that injures a third party, they are both considered concurrent tortfeasors and can be held accountable for the harm caused. Similarly, if two companies collude to fix prices, resulting in harm to consumers, both companies are considered concurrent tortfeasors and can be held liable for damages. These examples demonstrate how concurrent tortfeasors work together to cause harm and are jointly responsible for the resulting damages.

What is the dictionary definition of Concurrent Tortfeasors?
Dictionary Definition of Concurrent Tortfeasors

Concurrent tortfeasors are multiple individuals or entities who share responsibility for causing harm or injury to another person due to their actions or negligence. In simpler words, it means that more than one person is to blame for causing harm to someone else.

Full Definition Of Concurrent Tortfeasors

Concurrent tortfeasors are individuals or entities whose combined actions or omissions result in harm to a third party. This overview will explore the legal principles governing concurrent tortfeasors in British law, including their definitions, types, liabilities, defences, and the apportionment of damages. Examining these aspects will help establish a comprehensive understanding of the legal framework surrounding concurrent tortfeasors in the realm of tort law.

Definition and Types of Concurrent Tortfeasors

Concurrent tortfeasors are those whose independent wrongful acts combine to cause a single indivisible harm to a claimant. This concept is distinct from joint tortfeasors, where parties act in concert to commit a tortious act. Concurrent tortfeasors can be categorized into two primary types:

  • Independent Concurrent Tortfeasors: These are individuals or entities whose separate acts or omissions contribute to the same damage. Their actions are not coordinated, but the cumulative effect causes harm. For example, two drivers independently driving negligently and causing a collision that injures a pedestrian.
  • Successive Tortfeasors: These tortfeasors act independently but in a sequence that contributes to the same harm. An example is where a person suffers an initial injury due to one party’s negligence and a subsequent injury exacerbates the condition due to another party’s negligence.

Liability of Concurrent Tortfeasors

In British law, the liability of concurrent tortfeasors is governed by several key principles:

  • Joint and Several Liability: Concurrent tortfeasors can be held jointly and severally liable for the entire damage suffered by the claimant. This means the claimant can recover the full amount of damages from any one of the tortfeasors, irrespective of their share of fault. This principle ensures the claimant receives full compensation without being affected by the tortfeasors’ internal disputes.
  • Indivisible Harm: For joint and several liability to apply, the harm caused must be indivisible. Indivisible harm refers to damage that cannot be reasonably apportioned among the tortfeasors. If the harm can be divided, each tortfeasor is liable only for the portion attributable to their actions.
  • Contribution: Under the Civil Liability (Contribution) Act 1978, a tortfeasor who has paid more than their fair share of the damages can seek contributions from other concurrent tortfeasors. The court determines the appropriate contribution based on each tortfeasor’s relative responsibility.

Apportionment of Liability

Apportionment of liability among concurrent tortfeasors is a complex area of law. The courts aim to distribute liability in a manner that reflects the extent of each tortfeasor’s contribution to the harm. The following principles guide the apportionment process:

  • Causation and Fault: Courts consider the causal link between each tortfeasor’s conduct and the harm suffered by the claimant. The degree of fault or blameworthiness of each tortfeasor is also assessed. Factors such as the foreseeability of harm and the extent of deviation from a standard of care are taken into account.
  • Fairness and Justice: The courts strive to achieve a fair and just apportionment of liability. This involves balancing the interests of the claimant and the tortfeasors. The aim is to ensure the claimant is adequately compensated while avoiding undue hardship on any individual tortfeasor.
  • Expert Evidence: In complex cases, expert evidence may be required to determine the contribution of each tortfeasor to the harm. Experts in fields such as accident reconstruction, medical causation, or environmental science may provide crucial insights for apportioning liability.

Defences for Concurrent Tortfeasors

Concurrent tortfeasors may raise various defences to mitigate or avoid liability. Some of the common defences include:

  • Contributory Negligence: If the claimant’s negligence contributed to the harm, the damages may be reduced proportionately. Under the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945, the court can apportion damages based on the claimant’s share of responsibility.
  • Intervening Act: A tortfeasor may argue that an intervening act, which was not reasonably foreseeable, broke the chain of causation between their conduct and the harm. If successful, this defence can absolve the tortfeasor of liability.
  • Volenti Non-Fit Injuria: This defence applies if the claimant voluntarily accepts the risk of harm. If proven, it can bar the claimant from recovering damages. However, this defence is rarely successful in cases involving concurrent tortfeasors.

Case Law on Concurrent Tortfeasors

Several landmark cases have shaped the legal principles surrounding concurrent tortfeasors in British law. Notable cases include:

  • Fairchild v Glenhaven Funeral Services Ltd [2002] UKHL 22: This case involved multiple employers who exposed the claimant to asbestos. The House of Lords held that where it is impossible to determine which exposure caused the harm, each employer could be held liable for the full extent of the damage.
  • Barker v Corus UK Ltd [2006] UKHL 20: This case refined the principles established in Fairchild, introducing the concept of proportionate liability. The House of Lords ruled that each tortfeasor should be liable only for their proportionate contribution to the risk of harm.
  • Rahman v Arearose Ltd [2001] QB 351: This case involved a claimant who suffered two successive injuries. The Court of Appeal held that the first tortfeasor was liable for the initial injury, and the second tortfeasor was liable for the aggravation of the injury.

Practical Implications for Practitioners

Legal practitioners dealing with cases involving concurrent tortfeasors must navigate complex issues of causation, liability, and apportionment. Some practical considerations include:

  • Gathering Evidence: Comprehensive evidence is crucial in establishing the causal link between each tortfeasor’s conduct and the harm. This may involve obtaining witness statements, expert reports, and documentary evidence.
  • Negotiating Settlements: Given the complexity and uncertainty in apportioning liability, parties often opt for negotiated settlements. Practitioners should aim to achieve settlements that reflect the relative responsibility of each tortfeasor and provide fair compensation to the claimant.
  • Managing Multi-Party Litigation: Cases involving concurrent tortfeasors often involve multiple parties and complex procedural issues. Practitioners must effectively manage multi-party litigation, including coordinating with co-defendants, handling third-party claims, and ensuring compliance with procedural rules.


The legal framework governing concurrent tortfeasors in British law is intricate and multifaceted. By understanding the principles of joint and several liability, apportionment of liability, and available defences, practitioners can effectively navigate cases involving concurrent tortfeasors. The ultimate aim is to ensure fair and just outcomes for claimants while balancing the interests of tortfeasors. As case law continues to evolve, legal practitioners need to stay abreast of developments and adapt their strategies accordingly.

Concurrent Tortfeasors FAQ'S

A concurrent tortfeasor refers to multiple individuals or entities who are jointly responsible for causing harm or injury to another person or property.

Yes, each concurrent tortfeasor can be held individually liable for their proportionate share of the damages caused.

Liability among concurrent tortfeasors is typically determined based on the degree of fault or contribution to the harm caused. Each tortfeasor may be assigned a percentage of liability based on their actions or negligence.

Yes, a plaintiff can recover full damages from any one concurrent tortfeasor, regardless of their percentage of liability. However, that tortfeasor may have the right to seek contributions from other tortfeasors to share the burden of the damages.

Yes, if one concurrent tortfeasor is found to be substantially more at fault than the others, they may be held responsible for the entire amount of damages. However, they may still have the right to seek contributions from the other tortfeasors.

Yes, even if a concurrent tortfeasor’s actions only contributed minimally to the harm, they can still be held liable for their proportionate share of the damages.

Yes, a concurrent tortfeasor can still be held liable, even if their actions were not the direct cause of the harm. As long as their actions contributed to the overall harm, they can be held responsible.

Yes, a concurrent tortfeasor can still be held liable even if they were unaware of the other tortfeasors’ actions. Each tortfeasor is responsible for their own actions and the resulting harm they cause.

Yes, a concurrent tortfeasor may seek indemnification from another tortfeasor if they believe that the other tortfeasor should bear a greater share of the liability based on their actions or negligence.

Yes, a concurrent tortfeasor can still be held liable even if they were acting under the direction of another tortfeasor. Each tortfeasor is responsible for their own actions and the resulting harm caused, regardless of who directed them.

Related Phrases
No related content found.

This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.

This glossary post was last updated: 8th June 2024.

Cite Term

To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.

  • Page URL:
  • Modern Language Association (MLA):Concurrent Tortfeasors. DLS Solicitors. June 16 2024
  • Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Concurrent Tortfeasors. DLS Solicitors. (accessed: June 16 2024).
  • American Psychological Association (APA):Concurrent Tortfeasors. Retrieved June 16 2024, from website:
Avatar of DLS Solicitors
DLS Solicitors : Family Law Solicitors

Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.

All author posts