You’re staring at an MBE question where three different defendants all contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. One threw a punch. Another blocked the exit. A third egged them on. The plaintiff sues all three. Who pays what? Can one defendant force the others to chip in? Your brain starts spinning through joint and several liability rules, contribution, and indemnity — and you realize you’ve been confusing them for weeks.

This isn’t just you. Multiple tortfeasor scenarios are some of the most tested and most confused concepts on the MBE Torts section. The bar examiners love them because they can layer duty, causation, and apportionment issues into a single fact pattern. You need to know exactly when defendants are jointly liable, when they can seek reimbursement from each other, and what happens when one defendant settles early.

Let’s break down the rules you actually need to memorize.

What Joint and Several Liability Means

Joint and several liability applies when two or more tortfeasors are each a factual cause of the plaintiff’s indivisible injury. “Indivisible” means you cannot separate out which portion of the harm each defendant caused. When this happens, the plaintiff can recover the entire judgment from any one defendant, from all of them together, or in any combination that adds up to full compensation.

Here’s the key: the plaintiff gets only one recovery — they cannot collect twice for the same injury. But they get to choose which defendant to pursue. If Defendant A has deep pockets and Defendant B is broke, the plaintiff can collect 100 percent from Defendant A, even if Defendant B was more at fault.

This rule applies when multiple tortfeasors act in concert, when they breach a common duty, or when their independent acts combine to cause a single indivisible harm. It does not matter whether they acted together or separately, as long as each defendant’s conduct was a factual cause of the plaintiff’s injury.

When Defendants Are Jointly and Severally Liable

Joint and several liability arises in several scenarios on the MBE:

Acting in concert. When two or more defendants act pursuant to a common plan or design, they are jointly and severally liable for all resulting harm. Think of two people who agree to beat someone up. Both are liable for the full extent of the victim’s injuries, even if only one threw the punch that broke the victim’s jaw.

Independent acts causing indivisible harm. When multiple defendants act independently but their negligent acts combine to produce a single indivisible injury, they are jointly and severally liable. Classic example: Two drivers negligently collide at an intersection, and the collision injures a pedestrian. The pedestrian cannot prove which car actually struck them. Both drivers are jointly and severally liable for the full injury.

Vicarious liability. When one defendant is vicariously liable for another’s tort (employer for employee, principal for agent), both are jointly and severally liable. The plaintiff can sue either one or both.

The MBE will often test whether the harm is truly indivisible. If you can separate the harm — Defendant A broke the plaintiff’s arm, Defendant B broke their leg — then you have divisible injuries and several liability only. Each defendant pays only for the harm they caused.

Several Liability for Divisible Harms

When the harm is divisible — meaning you can reasonably apportion which defendant caused which portion of the injury — each defendant is severally liable only for their own share. The plaintiff must prove what portion each defendant caused.

Example: Defendant A negligently pollutes a stream, killing half the plaintiff’s fish. Two weeks later, Defendant B independently pollutes the same stream, killing the other half. The harm is divisible by time and causation. Defendant A pays for half, Defendant B pays for half. The plaintiff cannot recover the full loss from either one.

The burden is on the defendants to prove the harm is divisible. If they cannot, the default is joint and several liability. This creates an incentive for defendants to introduce evidence showing separate causation.

Contribution: When One Defendant Pays More Than Their Share

Here’s where it gets tricky. Let’s say three defendants are jointly and severally liable for a $300,000 judgment. The plaintiff collects the entire amount from Defendant A. Can Defendant A force the other two to reimburse their shares?

Yes, through contribution. Contribution allows a defendant who has paid more than their proportionate share of a common liability to recover from the other jointly liable defendants. Most jurisdictions follow comparative contribution, meaning each defendant’s share is based on their relative degree of fault.

If the jury finds Defendant A was 20 percent at fault, Defendant B was 30 percent at fault, and Defendant C was 50 percent at fault, and Defendant A paid the full $300,000, Defendant A can seek contribution of $240,000 from the other two ($90,000 from B and $150,000 from C). Defendant A keeps responsibility only for their 20 percent share ($60,000).

Key MBE rule: A defendant who settles with the plaintiff typically cannot seek contribution from other defendants. Settlement extinguishes the right to contribution in most jurisdictions. This creates strategic pressure to settle early.

Also, contribution is available only among defendants who are jointly and severally liable. If a defendant is only severally liable for a divisible harm, there is no right to contribution because they are not sharing a common liability.

Indemnity: Shifting the Entire Loss

Indemnity is different from contribution. Indemnity allows one defendant to recover 100 percent of what they paid from another defendant. It shifts the entire loss from one tortfeasor to another.

Indemnity arises in three main situations on the MBE:

By contract. The parties had an agreement requiring one party to indemnify the other. Common in commercial settings. If the contract is valid and covers the liability, the indemnitor must reimburse the indemnitee for the full amount.

Vicarious liability. When a defendant is held vicariously liable for another’s tort, the vicariously liable defendant can seek full indemnity from the actual tortfeasor. Example: An employer pays a judgment for an employee’s negligent driving during work. The employer can seek indemnification from the employee for the full amount, because the employer was not personally at fault.

Active versus passive negligence. In some jurisdictions, a passively negligent defendant can seek indemnity from an actively negligent defendant. This is a minority rule and rarely tested, but it comes up. Example: A landlord who failed to repair a defective stair (passive negligence) might seek indemnity from the contractor who negligently installed the stair (active negligence).

The key distinction: contribution divides the loss based on comparative fault. Indemnity shifts the entire loss from one defendant to another based on the relationship between them or the nature of their fault.

What Happens When One Defendant Settles

Settlement creates two major effects under joint and several liability rules:

Release. If the plaintiff settles with and releases one defendant, that release may discharge all jointly liable defendants unless the plaintiff expressly reserves rights against the others. Most jurisdictions now allow plaintiffs to settle with one defendant while preserving claims against others, as long as the settlement agreement makes this clear.

Set-off. When the plaintiff settles with one defendant for less than that defendant’s share and continues to pursue others, the settlement amount is typically credited against the total judgment. Some jurisdictions credit the settlement amount. Others credit the settling defendant’s proportionate share of fault, whichever is greater. This prevents the plaintiff from double-recovering.

The MBE loves testing whether a settling defendant can be pursued for contribution. General rule: no. Once a defendant settles in good faith, they are out. The remaining defendants cannot bring them back in for contribution. This is true even if the settling defendant paid far less than their proportionate share.

How to Spot Multiple Tortfeasor Issues on the MBE

Watch for these signals in the fact pattern:

When you see these, immediately ask: Is the harm indivisible? If yes, joint and several liability likely applies. Then ask: Is the question about the plaintiff’s recovery or about allocation among defendants? If it’s about allocation, you’re dealing with contribution or indemnity.

The Rules You Must Memorize

Here’s what needs to be instant recall on test day:

Joint and several liability applies when multiple tortfeasors cause an indivisible injury. The plaintiff can recover the full amount from any defendant.

Several liability applies when the harm is divisible. Each defendant pays only their apportioned share.

Contribution allows a defendant who paid more than their share to recover from other jointly liable defendants based on comparative fault. Settlement typically bars contribution.

Indemnity shifts the entire loss from one defendant to another based on contract, vicarious liability, or the active/passive distinction.

Settlement generally prevents the settling defendant from being pursued for contribution and credits the settlement amount (or the settler’s share) against the remaining judgment.

You will see at least one multiple tortfeasor question on your MBE. It might be buried in a negligence question about causation, or it might be the primary issue in a question about settlement and release. Either way, you need these rules ready for instant application.

If you want all 88 Torts rules organized for active recall — including the complete breakdown of joint and several liability, contribution, indemnity, and apportionment — FlashTables covers this in a structured two-column format designed for exactly this kind of rapid memorization. When you’re juggling multiple defendants and trying to remember who pays what, having the rules laid out side-by-side makes all the difference. You can check out the Torts table at getflashtables.com.

The bottom line: joint and several liability is about the plaintiff’s right to collect. Contribution and indemnity are about how defendants allocate responsibility among themselves. Keep those two inquiries separate, know when the harm is divisible, and you’ll handle these questions with confidence.