Wade, Fairness: A Comparative Analysis of the Indiana and Uniform Comparative Fault Acts, 17 IND. L. REV. 969 (1984); Mike Steenson, Recent Legislative Responses to the Rule of Joint and Several Liability, 23 TORT & INS. L.J. 482 (1988); Aaron D. Twerski, The Many Faces of Misuse: An Inquiry Into the Emerging Doctrine of Comparative Causation, 29 MERCER L. REV. 403 (1978); John W. Wade, Should Joint and Several Liability of Multiple Tortfeasors be Abolished?, 10 AM. J. TRIAL ADVOC. 193 (1986); Eileen M. Walsh & Eugene G. Doherty, Section 2-1117: Several Liability's Effect on Settlement and Contribution, 79 ILL. B.J. 122 (1991); Richard W. Wright, Allocating Liability Among Multiple Responsible Causes: A Principled Defense of Joint and Several Liability for Actual Harm and Risk Exposure, 21 U.C. DAVIS L. REV. 1141 (1988); Brad C. Betebenner, Comment, The Liability Reform Act: An Approach To Equitable Application, 13 J. CONTEMP. L. 89 (1987); John Conger, Note, If They're Partly to Blame, Why Should I Get Stuck With the Bill?, 3 COOLEY L. REV. 343 (1985); Kathleen Coughenour, Comment, The Right to Recover Damages: Tort Reform and the Arizona Constitution, 20 ARIZ. ST. L.J. 227 (1988); Armando Garcia-Mendoza, Comment, Tort Law: Joint and Several Liability Under Comparative Negligence--Forcing Old Doctrines on New Concepts, 40 U. FLA. L. REV. 469 (1988); Brian E. Koeberle, Comment, Recent Developments-
Tort Law--Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act--Comparative Negligence Act, 27
DUQUESNE L. REV. 163 (1988); Stephanie A. Kraft, Note, Modification of the Doctrine of Joint and Several Liability: Who Bears the Risk?, 11 NOVA L. REV. 165 (1986); Mary A. Laudick, Comment, Status and Trends in State Product Liability Law: Joint and Several Liability, 14 J. LEGIS. 242 (1987); R. Michael Lindsey, Comment, Compensation, Fairness, and the Costs of Accidents --Should Pennsylvania's Legislature Modify or Abrogate the Rule of Joint and Several Liability Among Concurrently Negligent Tortfeasors?, 91 DICK. L. REV. 947 (1987); Nancy L. Manzer. Note, 1986 Tort Reform Legislation: A Systematic Evaluation of Caps on Damages and Limitations on Joint and Several Liability, 73 CORNELL L. REV. 628 (1988); Edward J. McBride, Jr., Note, Fair Enough' Modifying the Rule of Joint and Several Liability in New Jersey, 20 RUTGERS L.J. 175 (1988); Comment, The Case of the Disappearing Defendant: An Economic Analysis, 132 U. PA. L. REV. 145 (1983).
(n159) See, e.g., International Mortgage Co. v. John P. Butler Accountancy Corp., 223 Cal. Rptr. 218 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986); overruled by Bily v. Arthur Young & Co., 834 P.2d 745 (Cal. 1992). See supra note 22. Blue Bell, Inc. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 715 S.W.2d 408 (Text Ct. App. 1986).
(n160) 461 A.2d 138 (N.J. 1983). See supra notes 10-14 and accompanying text.
(n161) Third-party practice allowing defendants to join other defendants in a single action is a relatively modern procedure that facilitates the administration of comparative fault systems. See Wade, supra note 158, at 193. There is a practical downside, however, in joining one's clients or customers as joint defendants in a lawsuit. It is a tactic that is sure to make it more difficult for the auditor to attract new clients. A several only liability rule would motivate plaintiffs more strongly to sue all potential defendants than would a joint liability rule, thus ameliorating that problem.
(n162) If the relying third party is found to be negligent, the judgment against the auditor will be reduced. However, the question remains how the apportioned judgment against the insolvent