What must be shown to successfully argue for indemnification due to joint liability?

To successfully argue for indemnification due to joint liability, it must be demonstrated that one defendant bears a significantly greater responsibility for the injury or damage than the others. This principle recognizes that while multiple parties may be liable for the same harm, the extent of their liability can differ based on their respective roles, actions, or levels of fault. In situations where one party is substantially more at fault, that party may seek to indemnify themselves for the damages they are required to pay to the plaintiff, essentially shifting the financial burden to the other party that is deemed less responsible.

Indemnification is often rooted in the idea of fairness or equity, where the burden of loss should fall more heavily on the party that is more culpable than others. Here, the focus is on the degree of responsibility and liability among the defendants involved, which is crucial for a successful claim for indemnification.

Other options do not accurately reflect the nature of indemnification. The plaintiff agreeing to terms is not a requisite for an indemnification claim among defendants. Knowledge of the risk by the defendant does not inherently impact their ability to seek indemnification from another party for a disproportionate share of liability. Lastly, the notion that all defendants must equally share liability contradicts the concept of indemn