Question

LEGAL PRINCIPLES:
(1) Joint tort-feasers means joint wrong doers. People can be joint tort-feasors in case of common action, in fact or in law.
(2) Joint tort-feasers are jointly and severally liable.
FACTS:

Two dogs belonging to two different owners acting in concert attacked a flock of sheep and injured several sheeps. In an action for damages brought against the owners of the dogs, if one of them puts a defence claiming that he was liable for one half only of the damage, then which one of the following statements is legally sustainable in the above case?
DECIDE.

• A. Neither of the owners is liable for damages done by his dog
• B. Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage
• C. The owners themselves are not joint tort-feasers
• D. None of the above

Answer 1

Answer: (B)

Each owner was responsible for one half of the damage

• Joint tortfeasors are persons who are responsible for the same tort. In other words, the law in some sense imputes commission of the wrongful act on two or more persons. The Courts divide the liability among the tortfeasors on the basis of various factors like percentage of negligence committed or equally on pro-rata basis as was done in the case of Raman v Cochin Devaswom Board. Thus, equal liability of tortfeasors can be established.
  
• In the present case, there were two dogs of different people attacking a flock of sheep which was a joint tort feasance and is jointly or severally liable. Hence, each owner was responsible for one half of the damage