3 ms·

The criminal is liable, but do is the bank. The US generally has a legal system that acknowledges joint and several liability, so the bank and criminal are ind

The criminal is liable, but do is the bank. The US generally has a legal system that acknowledges joint and several liability, so the bank and criminal are independently 100% liable...and guess who the damaged party is more likely to get satisfaction from? Being a bank is a privilege, a highly regulated privilege at that. It sort of goes without saying the bank violate their duties and was not complying with bank regulations where the opened up an account on behalf of someone using the identification of a 3rd party. Don't like those regulations? Think they are to burdensome? Then Wells Fargo can give their bank charter.

tzs 7y ago
> The US generally has a legal system that acknowledges joint and several liability, so the bank and criminal are independently 100% liable...and guess who the damaged party is more likely to get satisfaction from? People often wonder how this is fair. If parties D1 and D2 both played a role in allowing some bad thing to happen to P, but it was 90% D1's fault and 10% D2's fault, but D2 has deep pockets and D1 has almost nothing, how is it fair to make D2 pay both their own share and D1's share of the damages to P? It makes a lot more sense when you realize that these are situations where someone has to get screwed. If D1 is liable to P for 90% of the total damages and D2 is liable to P for 10% of the total damages, P gets screwed. P only gets 10% of what they are owed. Joint and several liability recognizes that of the parties involved P is the one who least deserves to get screwed, and so allows P to collect the full damage award from whichever D's have the money. If, as in this example, that results in one or more D's getting screwed, those D's can sue the other D's over it.
- saghm 7y ago
  I was vaguely familiar with all the concepts in this, but I hadn't been exposed to a clear explanation in laymen's terms before. This makes a lot of sense to me now. Thanks!
- throwaway_law 7y ago
  >People often wonder how this is fair. And that will fairly be debated until the end of time. Some jurisdictions do not have joint and several liability and so your example of liability being capped up to their % of their contributory negligence is a reality. Even in the joint and severally liable jurisdictions, there will be a finding of contributory negligence, but its pretty well understood a jury can't fairly assign %'s of fault anyway. However, as someone who sees the reality of these cases, the guy with the deep pockets really doesn't pay either, their insurance pays, and this is really where things get both weird and fair. Say you hit me with your car and I file a claim with my insurance and your insurance, the insurance companies work it out behind the scene (and I promise they do these settlements in their own best interest, not the insured (your) or the claimants best interests (mine)) and insurance does this knowing tomorrow they will work together on another claim where the other insurance company will be liable. Insurance issues aside, if it weren't for joint and several liability these deep pockets you reference would never be liable, they would always out spend the criminal defendant in attorney's fees and likely be attributed almost no % of liability. Joint and several liability encourages the fair settlement of cases to save time and money to all parties, and gives the claimant the best chance of being made whole, whereas these other system encourages outspending the other parties in litigation and disincentives settlements of claims, shifting a lot of costs on tax payers who pay for the courts.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

tzs 7y ago

> The US generally has a legal system that acknowledges joint and several liability, so the bank and criminal are independently 100% liable...and guess who the damaged party is more likely to get satisfaction from? People often wonder how this is fair. If parties D1 and D2 both played a role in allowing some bad thing to happen to P, but it was 90% D1's fault and 10% D2's fault, but D2 has deep pockets and D1 has almost nothing, how is it fair to make D2 pay both their own share and D1's share of the damages to P? It makes a lot more sense when you realize that these are situations where someone has to get screwed. If D1 is liable to P for 90% of the total damages and D2 is liable to P for 10% of the total damages, P gets screwed. P only gets 10% of what they are owed. Joint and several liability recognizes that of the parties involved P is the one who least deserves to get screwed, and so allows P to collect the full damage award from whichever D's have the money. If, as in this example, that results in one or more D's getting screwed, those D's can sue the other D's over it.

saghm 7y ago
I was vaguely familiar with all the concepts in this, but I hadn't been exposed to a clear explanation in laymen's terms before. This makes a lot of sense to me now. Thanks!
throwaway_law 7y ago
>People often wonder how this is fair. And that will fairly be debated until the end of time. Some jurisdictions do not have joint and several liability and so your example of liability being capped up to their % of their contributory negligence is a reality. Even in the joint and severally liable jurisdictions, there will be a finding of contributory negligence, but its pretty well understood a jury can't fairly assign %'s of fault anyway. However, as someone who sees the reality of these cases, the guy with the deep pockets really doesn't pay either, their insurance pays, and this is really where things get both weird and fair. Say you hit me with your car and I file a claim with my insurance and your insurance, the insurance companies work it out behind the scene (and I promise they do these settlements in their own best interest, not the insured (your) or the claimants best interests (mine)) and insurance does this knowing tomorrow they will work together on another claim where the other insurance company will be liable. Insurance issues aside, if it weren't for joint and several liability these deep pockets you reference would never be liable, they would always out spend the criminal defendant in attorney's fees and likely be attributed almost no % of liability. Joint and several liability encourages the fair settlement of cases to save time and money to all parties, and gives the claimant the best chance of being made whole, whereas these other system encourages outspending the other parties in litigation and disincentives settlements of claims, shifting a lot of costs on tax payers who pay for the courts.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]