You must pay more just because you can
<p>Suppose I win a civil lawsuit against two parties in California, one being
wealthy and the other being poor (and unlikely to pay), but the poor party
has clearly (according to the judge, any jury member, or any spectator) played
the bigger "wrongful role".  Also, suppose there was no monetary benefit to
the wealthy party.</p>

<p>(E.g., there was an accidental killing where the poor party was robbing someone
with a pointed gun, and the wealthy party tripped into the scene, bumping the
gun and causing it to fire - This example might be too extreme, so modify
it with some one-time negligence on the part of the wealthy party if you must.)</p>

<p>Can the judge force the wealthy party to pay more?</p>

<p>Since I could have sued only the wealthy party in the first place, it seems
the judge should also be able to use a person's wealth as basis for awarded
damages, but this does not seem fair here.  In general, how is the wealth of
defendants used by judges to award damages?  Is there any case where the
judge is not supposed to consider the wealth of a defendant?</p>

<h2><a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/j/joint-and-several-liability/" rel="noreferrer">Joint and several</a> v <a href="https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/proportional-liability/" rel="noreferrer">Proportionate</a> liability</h2>

<p>Joint and several liability is the common law default for torts. Each tortfeasor is “jointly” (together) and “severally” (individually) liable for the total amount.</p>

<p>Some jurisdictions have adopted statutes that use proportionate liability for some or all torts and/or elements of the damage. <a href="https://www.tysonmendes.com/defending-deep-pocket-california-proposition-51-offset-vicarious-liability/" rel="noreferrer">California</a> has for non-economic damage (pain &amp; suffering etc.) in <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=1431.2.&amp;lawCode=CIV" rel="noreferrer">1431.2</a> but keeps joint and several liability for economic loss (e.g. property damage, medical costs etc.).</p>

<p>Proportional liability does not apply when liability arises through law rather than through fault. So an employer is still fully liable for the torts of an employee etc.</p>

<p>There are cases where all the parties legally responsible for damages have to pay for the damages together, and they are individually responsible for paying. So if there was $20,000 in damages, a court would not say "Rich man pays $19,000 and poor man pays $1,000", unless the rich man is indeed responsible for $19,000 of the $20,000. Instead the court may say "rich man and poor man are together responsible to pay $20,000". If that case was won in your favour, you'd most likely focus on getting the money out of the rich man. If he has $20,000 you can ask him to pay $20,000. </p>

california civil-law