Release of a joint tortfeasor -

Release of a joint tortfeasor

The doctrine governing the discharge of joint tortfeasors shows how a plaintiff’s right to recovery depends on the legal effect of the settlement.
Under common law, because the cause of action against joint tortfeasors is single and indivisible, a full release of one tortfeasor automatically discharges all others.
To avoid this result, the law distinguishes a release from a covenant not to sue.
While a release extinguishes the entire cause of action, a covenant not to sue protects only the specified tortfeasor, allowing the plaintiff to continue proceedings against the remaining joint tortfeasors.

Cutler v. McPhail confirms the strict common law rule that a claim against joint tortfeasors is single and indivisible.
The plaintiff sued both the author of a defamatory letter and its publishers as joint tortfeasors.
However, by executing a “release” in favour of the publishers instead of a “covenant not to sue,” the plaintiff extinguished the entire cause of action.
As reaffirmed by Salomon J., a release granted to one joint tortfeasor automatically discharges all others, illustrating how a procedural mistake can completely defeat the plaintiff’s claim against the remaining defendants.

Shiv Sagar Lal v. Mata Din departs from the strict common law rule by prioritizing the intention of the parties over technical language.
Although the plaintiff used the word “released” while discharging one minor defendant from a malicious prosecution suit, the Allahabad High Court held that the true effect of the discharge depends on the parties’ intention.
Since the plaintiff clearly intended to continue the action against the remaining defendants, the Court treated the discharge as a covenant not to sue rather than an absolute release, thereby preserving the plaintiff’s right to proceed against the remaining joint tortfeasors.

The doctrine of full satisfaction provides that a partial settlement with one joint tortfeasor does not discharge the others unless it amounts to complete satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim.
As illustrated in Ram Kumar v. Ali Hussain, accepting ₹25 out of a total claim of ₹325 for a joint assault was treated as partial satisfaction, not a full accord and satisfaction.
Therefore, because the plaintiff had not received full compensation, the remaining joint tortfeasors continued to be liable for the balance of the damages.

Khusro v. N.A. Guzder is the leading Supreme Court decision on partial compromises involving joint tortfeasors in India.
The Court held that a plaintiff’s acceptance of an unconditional apology and a compromise decree with one defendant in a defamation suit does not discharge the remaining joint tortfeasors.
Since such a settlement does not amount to full satisfaction of the plaintiff’s claim, the right to continue proceedings against the remaining tortfeasors remains fully intact.