I am all for the innocent party being made whole. But my definition of innocent is less than 5% at fault, and that includes the family of the injured party.

What I object to is when:

The family of the deceased, who is 60% at fault,
Party C is 30% at fault, but broke, and
Party D is 10% at fault but is the only one with the capacity to pay.

In many states the family can collect the entire damages from Party D. I do not think that is just. The government likes it because most public assistance is means tested and that keeps the family off the public dole. The lawyers like it because they are on a contingency fee.

I think the law should be:
Joint liability does not apply to you unless you are greater than 20% at fault,
Joint liability does not apply if the injured party is more than 20% liable, and
You are not eligible to collect if the incident occurred during commission of a misdemeanor or more serious crime.

Again - when the law does not produce what most people consider a just result then follow the money to find out why.