Knell v. Feltman

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1949 · Torts

174 F.2d 662 (1949)

Updated July 23, 2026

TortsContributionConcurrent tortfeasorsThird-party practicejoint tortfeasorsnonintentional wrongdoingRule 14(a)third-party defendant

Facts

Mrs. Langland and her husband were guest passengers in Knell's car when it collided with Feltman's taxicab in the District of Columbia, seriously injuring Mrs. Langland. The Langlands sued only Feltman, and Feltman then impleaded Knell, alleging that Knell's sole or contributing negligence caused the collision. Knell denied negligence, asserted that Feltman alone caused the injuries, and counterclaimed for his own injuries. The jury found Feltman's negligence was a contributing cause and found Knell negligent with his negligence also being a contributing cause of the collision, after which the court required Knell to contribute half of the $11,500 Feltman paid the Langlands.

Issue

Whether a defendant found liable to the plaintiff may obtain contribution from another concurrent tortfeasor whom the plaintiff did not sue to judgment, and whether contribution is unavailable when that other tortfeasor personally participated in the negligent act rather than being only vicariously liable. Also, whether the jury's finding that Knell's negligence was a contributing cause sufficiently established his liability for contribution.

Rule

When a tort is committed by the concurrent negligence of two or more persons who are not intentional and wilful wrongdoers, contribution may be enforced between them. A joint judgment against both tortfeasors is not a prerequisite to contribution, and it is immaterial whether any tortfeasor was personally negligent or only vicariously negligent. Under Rule 14(a), a third-party defendant brought in as one who may be liable for part of the plaintiff's claim is bound by the adjudication of the third-party plaintiff's liability to the plaintiff and may assert the defenses available to the third-party plaintiff.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Baltimore, Maya Ortiz was riding in a delivery van when the van collided with a sedan driven by Nolan Price. Maya sued only Nolan. Nolan filed a third-party complaint against the van driver, Eric Sloan, and the jury found that both Nolan and Eric were negligent and that each negligence contributed to Maya's injuries.

If Nolan pays the judgment to Maya, can Nolan obtain contribution from Eric?

Explanation. The majority held that when a tort is committed by the concurrent negligence of two or more persons who are not intentional or wilful wrongdoers, contribution may be enforced between them. A joint judgment against both is not required, and the plaintiff's choice to sue only one tortfeasor does not defeat the paying defendant's right to contribution.