Knell
v. Feltman
85
U.S.App.D.C. 22, 174 F.2d 662.
Prosser,
pp. 378-380
Facts: Knell was driving a car and
got into an accident with a taxi owned by Feltman. Knell’s passengers sued Feltman for negligence,
and Feltman in turn sued Knell, saying that his negligence caused the accident. The jury awarded damages to Knell’s
passengers, and then awarded Feltman half of those damages from Knell. Knell appealed on the basis that his
passengers never tried to get a judgment against him.
Issue: Shall Feltman be denied
contribution from Knell because Knell wasn’t a target of the plaintiffs’ litigation?
Rule: NEW RULE (at least for
D.C.)! There doesn’t need to be a joint judgment
against two people who are negligent in order to enforce contribution. (There is no contribution between intentional
tortfeasors, though.)
Analysis: The court says that the
right to get contribution lies with the person who has been forced to pay. In this case, that’s Feltman. The plaintiff has no right to decide who
should pay for a wrong. Otherwise, the plaintiff
might sue one person and not another just because they like them less as
opposed to because they factually were more responsible for the harm done.
There
used to be a rule that there was no contribution between joint or concurrent tortfeasors,
but this court finds that rule to be wrong all along.
Conclusion: The judgment of the trial
court is affirmed.