California Civil Code Section 1431.2 splits every damage award into two buckets and treats them differently. For non-economic losses like pain and suffering, each defendant pays only the percentage that matches their own share of fault. For economic losses like medical bills and lost wages, the older rule still controls, and any defendant found at fault can be forced to pay the entire amount. Voters enacted the statute in 1986 as Proposition 51, the Fair Responsibility Act, to end the practice of making a minimally-at-fault defendant cover the full non-economic portion of a judgment just because they had the deepest pockets.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1431.2 – Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages
How the Non-Economic Rule Works
The rule is simple to state. When multiple defendants share fault, each one owes the plaintiff a dollar amount for non-economic damages equal to that defendant’s percentage of fault multiplied by the total non-economic award, and nothing more. The court enters a separate judgment against each defendant for that specific figure.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1431.2 – Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages
A worked example: a jury awards $500,000 in pain-and-suffering damages and finds Defendant A 20 percent at fault. Defendant A owes $100,000 on that portion of the verdict. If the other defendants vanish, go bankrupt, or carry no insurance, Defendant A still owes $100,000, not a dollar more.
The protection cuts both ways. The flip side is that the shortfall belongs to the plaintiff. If a co-defendant assigned 50 percent of the fault has no money, the plaintiff simply does not collect that half of the non-economic award. That is the trade-off Proposition 51 built into California law: proportional exposure for defendants, risk of partial non-recovery for plaintiffs on the intangible side of the case.
Economic Damages Are Still Joint and Several
Section 1431.2 changed only one half of the ledger. The default rule in California, under Civil Code Section 1431, remains that obligations shared by multiple parties are presumed joint.2California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1431 For economic damages, every defendant found at fault is on the hook for the full amount. A defendant assigned five percent of the blame can still be made to pay 100 percent of the plaintiff’s hospital bills and lost earnings if no one else can pay.
The policy choice shows through clearly. On the losses that are easiest to prove with receipts and pay stubs, and hardest for an injured person to absorb, the law protects the plaintiff first. A defendant forced to pay more than their share retains a right of contribution against co-defendants under Code of Civil Procedure Section 875, but contribution is only worth what the other defendants can actually pay.3California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 875 A defendant who intentionally caused the injury has no right to contribution at all.
Economic vs. Non-Economic Damages
Because the split controls who pays what, the statute defines both categories.
Economic damages are losses with a receipt or calculation behind them: past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, burial costs, property repair or replacement, the cost of hiring help for household tasks the plaintiff can no longer perform, and lost business opportunities.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1431.2 – Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages Future costs must be reduced to present value, accounting for inflation and investment returns between the award and when the money will be spent.
Non-economic damages cover the human side of the injury: pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish, loss of companionship, damage to reputation, and similar intangible harms.1California Legislative Information. California Civil Code 1431.2 – Several Liability for Non-Economic Damages There is no objective price tag, so the jury sets a figure based on how the injury affected the plaintiff’s life.
Getting the categorization right matters. A plaintiff’s lawyer will push to characterize as much of the award as possible as economic (collectible in full from any defendant with assets). Defense counsel will push the other direction, toward non-economic (capped at that defendant’s fault percentage).
How Fault Gets Divided
Applying Section 1431.2 requires someone to put a number on each person’s share. The jury or judge assigns a percentage of fault to every named defendant, to the plaintiff, and to any non-party who contributed to the injury but is not in the case. The percentages have to total exactly 100.4Justia. CACI No. 406 – Apportionment of Responsibility
The non-party piece is where defense strategy gets interesting. A defendant can point to someone who settled early, was never sued, or is immune, and argue that person deserves a share of the blame. If the jury assigns 40 percent to that absent party, the named defendants’ combined non-economic liability drops by 40 percent. Defense lawyers sometimes call this the empty-chair defense. The defendant has to prove it with substantial evidence, though. A jury cannot invent a phantom defendant to shift blame onto.4Justia. CACI No. 406 – Apportionment of Responsibility
California also follows pure comparative negligence. A plaintiff found more at fault than the defendants can still recover. If the plaintiff is 60 percent responsible, the award is reduced by 60 percent, and the remaining 40 percent is collectible.
The Intentional Tort Exception
Section 1431.2 applies only in cases “based upon principles of comparative fault,” and the California Supreme Court has read that limit strictly. In B.B. v. County of Los Angeles (2020), the court held that a defendant who committed an intentional tort cannot use Proposition 51 to shrink their share of non-economic damages.4Justia. CACI No. 406 – Apportionment of Responsibility Comparative-fault principles were never meant to let someone who acted deliberately shift blame onto people who were merely negligent.
The practical effect shows up in mixed cases. If a security company negligently fails to prevent an assault, the assailant stays fully liable for the non-economic damages their intentional conduct caused, with no reduction based on the security company’s negligence. The security company itself still gets Proposition 51 protection on its own share. Fault can be allocated to an entity that is immune from paying for its wrongful acts, but not to one whose conduct has already been found not wrongful.
Settlements and the Dollar-for-Dollar Credit
When a co-defendant settles before trial, the plaintiff’s remaining claim against the other defendants is reduced by the greater of the settlement amount or the consideration received, under Code of Civil Procedure Section 877.5California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 877 That is a flat dollar credit, not a proportional-fault adjustment. A $200,000 settlement on a $1 million case leaves the remaining defendants facing up to $800,000 in combined exposure.
The settling defendant typically asks the court for a good-faith settlement determination under Section 877.6, which, if granted, blocks the non-settling defendants from pursuing contribution or indemnity against the settler.6California Legislative Information. California Code of Civil Procedure 877.6 The practical result is familiar to anyone who has litigated a multi-defendant case in California: plaintiffs can settle cheaply with a low-fault defendant, lock in a good-faith finding, and then press the remaining defendant for the balance. On the non-economic side, the remaining defendant pays only their percentage. On the economic side, joint liability means they may still carry the full remaining bill.