Overview 
 
 When two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for a tortious act, each party is independently liable for the full extent of the injuries stemming from the tortious act. Thus, if a plaintiff wins a money judgment against the parties collectively, the plaintiff may collect the full value of the judgment from any one of them. That party may then seek contribution from the other wrong-doers. This concept of choosing the defendant(s) from whom to collect damages is called the law of indivisible injury. 
 
 The issue of joint and several liability is often involved in "toxic torts" claims, such as cases involving asbestos-related mesothelioma. This is because mesothelioma can be caused by exposure to asbestos, but often times workers exposed to asbestos had faced exposure in multiple jobs on multiple job sites, and so it is difficult to pick a single tortfeasor responsible for the resulting mesothelioma. 
 
 Example 
 
 For example suppose that A, B, and C negligently injure V. V successfully sues A, B, and C, for $1,000,000. If the court used a joint and several liability system, V could demand that A pay V the full $1,000,000. A could them demand contribution from B and C. However, if B or C could not pay, A would be stuck paying the full $1,000,000. 
 
 Risk Reduction and Liability Reduction 
 
 Joint and several liability reduces plaintiffs' risk that one or more defendants are judgment-proof by shifting that risk onto the other defendants. Only if all defendants are judgment-proof will a plaintiff be unable to recover anything. However, this system can cause inequities, particularly where a relatively blameless defendant is forced to bear the financial burden of an incredibly guilty co-defendant's insolvency. 
 
 The court in Ford Motor v. Boomer (2003) investigated the issue of liability reduction, and found that when two tortfeasors are liable for one incident (i.e. two negligent drivers were involved in a car accident), but the court cannot determine which tortfeasor is more responsible and to what degree, then the the court may lessen the liability of both or either tortfeasor. 
 
 Other Varieties 
 
 There is another type of joint and several liability called market share liability. This doctrine is invoked when a good causes an injury, and there are multiple manufacturers of the good. When a court cannot determine which manufacturer created the precise good which caused the harm, the manufacturers will be held proportionately liable in accordance with their market share in the market of the good. Sindell v. Abbott Laboratories (1980) helped to develop this doctrine. 
 
 Another type of joint and several liability is called the doctrine of alternative liability. Summers v Tice (1948) contributed to the doctrine when the court found that under the doctrine of alternative liability, two independent tortfeasors may each be held liable for the full extent of the plaintiff's injuries if it is impossible to tell which tortfeasor caused the plaintiff's injuries. The burden of proof will shift to the defendants to either absolve themselves of liability or apportion the damages between themselves. If the defendants, however, are acting in concert with each other, then the doctrine would not apply, because then both Ds would be responsible regardless of who pulled the trigger 
 
 A third variety is typically referred to as either "preempted causes" or "doomed plaintiffs." Dillon v. Twin State Gas & Electric Co (1932) helped to develop this doctrine. In the case, a boy was playing on a bridge when he lost his balance and fell from the bridge; but he was fatally electrocuted when he tried to steady himself by grabbing a nearby high voltage wire. The court found that because the boy would have probably died anyway in falling from the bridge, the defendant (electrical company which maintained the electrical wires) should not be held liable for any damages except those that would compensate for the increase in boy’s suffering due to electrocution. 

 NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WKRN) – Attorneys for Erin Andrews believe the owner and operator of a Nashville hotel should pay the full $55 million she was recently awarded in a civil lawsuit. 
 
 In a new court filing, the attorneys say West End Hotel Partners, the owner, and Windsor Capitol Group, the operator, should not split the payout with Michael Barrett, the man found guilty of altering a peephole on Andrews’ hotel room in 2009, secretly recording her naked and posting the video online. 
 
 Andrews’ attorneys cite a complex law, joint and several liabilities, that asserts all parties found liable are still independently liable for the full extent of damages regardless of a jury’s designation of how at fault each party is. 
 
 The state of Tennessee overturned that law in 2013 but the overturn only affects cases on or after July 1, 2013. According to her attorneys, Andrews’ claims come well before then, making the new law ineffective toward her case. 
 
 Furthermore, the attorneys assert the hotel defendants should be liable for all of the damages “because the intentional conduct of Barrett was a foreseeable consequence of their negligence.” 
 
 On March 7, a jury found Barrett 51 percent liable with the hotel’s owner and operator 49 percent liable. Extrapolated, that turns out to be a judgment for $28.05 against Barrett and $26.95 million against West End and Windsor Capitol. 

 Effective July 1, 2013, if multiple defendants are found liable in a civil action governed by comparative fault, each defendant is only liable for the percentage of fault allocated. No defendant will be held jointly liable for any damages; however, the doctrine of joint and several liability will still apply in civil conspiracy cases and in product liability actions based on strict liability and breach of warranty (among manufacturers).
– A jury awarded $55 million to Fox Sports reporter and Dancing With the Stars co-host Erin Andrews earlier this month in her suit against the stalker who secretly recorded nude video of her at a Tennessee hotel. The stalker, Michael David Barrett, was found 51% responsible, while West End Hotel Partners, the owner of the Nashville Marriott where the 2008 filming took place, and Windsor Capital Group, the management company, were deemed 49% at fault for letting Barrett book the room next to Andrews, per the Tennessean. But because Barrett will likely not be able to pay much, if anything, toward the judgment, Andrews' attorneys are now saying the hotel owner and operator should have to fork over the entire $55 million. A new filing by Andrews' legal team asks a Nashville judge to apply the "joint and several liability" rule, a law that says all parties jointly liable for an act are also independently liable for the full extent of damages, per WKRN—which means the hotel companies would be on the hook for Andrews' entire payout. What complicates things: Tennessee overturned that law in 2013, but cases before July 1, 2013, are apparently grandfathered in. "The intentional conduct of Barrett was a foreseeable consequence of their negligence," Andrews' attorneys note in the filing. A Nashville attorney not involved in the case agrees, telling the Tennessean, "The jury found that the hotel enabled a predator to cause harm to a hotel guest. Ms. Andrews is asking that the hotel be held accountable for the entire amount of harm caused. It's a very solid legal argument based on well-reasoned Tennessee legal decisions." (Andrews has openly advocated for anti-stalking initiatives.)