Yellow Cab Company of D.C., Inc. v. Dreslin

United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit · 1950 · Torts

181 F.2d 626 (D.C. Cir. 1950)

Updated July 23, 2026

Tortscontributionjoint liabilitycommon liabilitytortfeasorsspousal immunityhusband-wife immunityconcurrent negligence

Facts

A taxicab owned by the Cab Company and driven by its agent collided with an automobile driven by Dreslin. Dreslin's wife and others in his car were injured and sued the Cab Company, while Dreslin also joined as a plaintiff on his own related claims. The Cab Company asserted Dreslin's contributory negligence and cross-claimed against him for contribution for any sums recovered by the other plaintiffs. The jury found the collision was caused by the concurrent negligent operation of both vehicles, but the trial court denied contribution against Dreslin as to the judgment recovered by Mrs. Dreslin because he was not liable in tort to his wife.

Issue

May one tortfeasor obtain contribution from another for damages paid to the other tortfeasor's wife when, under District of Columbia law, the husband is not liable in tort to his wife? Put differently, does contribution exist absent joint liability by both alleged tortfeasors to the injured plaintiff?

Rule

The right of contribution arises out of a common or joint liability. An injured plaintiff in the underlying suit must have had a cause of action against the party from whom contribution is sought; if that party was not liable to the plaintiff, no right of contribution attaches.

🔒

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 Washington, D.C., a delivery van driven by Owen Hartley and a sedan driven by Nina Flores collide at an intersection. Nina's husband, Leo Flores, is a passenger in her car and is injured; he sues Owen alone and wins a judgment, and the jury finds Owen and Nina were concurrently negligent. Under District of Columbia law, spouses may not sue each other in tort.

If Owen pays Leo's judgment in full and seeks contribution from Nina, what is the strongest argument against contribution?

Explanation. Contribution arises only from a common or joint liability to the same injured plaintiff. The key question is whether the injured plaintiff had a cause of action against the person from whom contribution is sought. Because Leo could not sue his spouse Nina in tort under the governing immunity rule, Nina was not liable to Leo, so there was no common liability between Owen and Nina as to Leo's injury. (Derived from Yellow Cab Company of D.C., Inc. v. Dreslin (1950).)