Civil Procedure Multistate Bar Practice Exam

When a court determines that joint tortfeasors are involved, what is true about their necessity?

1. They are always considered necessary parties

2. They are never regarded as necessary parties

3. They can only be included if all agree

4. They can be joined but are not required

The correct answer is: They are never regarded as necessary parties

In the context of civil procedure, the determination regarding necessary parties essentially revolves around whether their absence would impair the court's ability to provide complete relief among the parties already involved in the action or whether their interests would be prejudiced if they were not included. When joint tortfeasors are involved, they are generally not considered necessary parties in every case. The primary reason for this is that a plaintiff can often pursue an action against one tortfeasor without needing to join others. This is particularly true in situations where the courts are capable of rendering a complete judgment against any of the tortfeasors individually and holding them responsible for their share of liability. The absence of joint tortfeasors does not typically prevent the court from addressing the claim at hand. Therefore, it is accurate to say that joint tortfeasors are never regarded as necessary parties because the plaintiff has the option to seek recovery from any single tortfeasor, and the action can continue without involving all potential defendants. This principle supports the view that while joint tortfeasors may be included in an action (if it is strategically beneficial to the plaintiff), their presence is not legally required for the court to proceed with determining liability and awarding damages.