body: Suppose I win a civil lawsuit against two parties in California, one being
  wealthy and the other being poor (and unlikely to pay), but the poor party
  has clearly (according to the judge, any jury member, or any spectator) played
  the bigger "wrongful role". Also, suppose there was no monetary benefit to
  the wealthy party.
  
  
  (E.g., there was an accidental killing where the poor party was robbing someone
  with a pointed gun, and the wealthy party tripped into the scene, bumping the
  gun and causing it to fire - This example might be too extreme, so modify
  it with some one-time negligence on the part of the wealthy party if you must.)
  
  
  Can the judge force the wealthy party to pay more?
  
  
  Since I could have sued only the wealthy party in the first place, it seems
  the judge should also be able to use a person's wealth as basis for awarded
  damages, but this does not seem fair here. In general, how is the wealth of
  defendants used by judges to award damages? Is there any case where the
  judge is not supposed to consider the wealth of a defendant?
  
  
  
title: You must pay more just because you can