MBE Rules · Torts
Apportionment to Nonparties
Apportionment to nonparties
The rule
Comparative-fault regimes split on assigning fault shares to immune, settled, or absent actors; several-liability systems apportion to all tortfeasors while joint-liability states hold defendants for the insolvent share.
In plain English
In tort law, when determining fault in a comparative-fault system, courts may assign fault shares to all parties involved, including those who are immune or have settled. However, in several-liability systems, all tortfeasors are held accountable, while in joint-liability states, defendants can be responsible for the share of any insolvent co-defendants.
Worked example
In a car accident, Driver A is found to be 60% at fault, Driver B 30%, and Driver C, who is uninsured and has settled with Driver A, is 10% at fault. In a joint-liability state, Driver A and Driver B would be responsible for the entire 10% share of Driver C, as he cannot pay. Thus, Driver A and Driver B would share the liability for the total damages.
Memory hook
Fault can follow the money, even when the party is absent or settled.
The trap
Exams may confuse students by presenting scenarios where a nonparty's fault is significant, leading students to miscalculate liability shares. Watch for details on whether the jurisdiction follows joint or several liability rules.
How examiners test it
This rule often appears in questions involving multiple tortfeasors, requiring candidates to analyze how fault is apportioned among them, especially when some parties are absent or have settled.
Drill this rule until it can't fail you.
Vrenberg generates unlimited questions on this exact rule, tracks your mastery of it, and brings it back until it sticks.