Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 16,300 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 223 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]

Bundt v. Embro | 265 N.Y.S.2d 872 (1965)

Under the common-law doctrine of joint and several liability, a plaintiff doesn’t need to join all defendants in an action to recover damages. Rather, if two or more defendants are subject to liability for damages, a plaintiff can obtain a judgment against one or more of them. In the 1965 case Bundt versus Embro, a New York trial court considered whether a tort plaintiff’s satisfaction of a judgment against one tortfeasor discharges the other tortfeasors from liability.

In the 1960s, Edward Embro Junior was driving his vehicle in New York City with Hans Bundt as his passenger. At the same time, Aldo Di Belardino was driving a rental vehicle in the same area with Guilia, Gino, and Graziella Mondini and Enrica Ferrario as his passengers. The rental vehicle was owned by Wallachs Auto Rental, Incorporated and leased to G.B.I., Incorporated.

As Embro approached an intersection, he drove through a stop sign and collided with Di Belardino’s vehicle, resulting in injuries to both vehicles’ passengers. Prior to the collision, Peckham Road Corporation had been hired by the state of New York to repair a highway near the scene of the accident.

The passengers, including Bundt, then brought a negligence action against Embro, Wallachs, Peckham, and G.B.I. in the New York Supreme Court, Queens County. In addition, the passengers brought a negligence action against the state of New York in the Court of Claims. In the actions, the passengers argued that both automobiles were operated negligently and that Peckham negligently obstructed the view of the stop sign, thereby rendering the state liable.

The Court of Claims issued a decision against the state, granting the passengers judgments in different amounts. Subsequently, Embro and others moved to amend their answers in the supreme-court action, asserting that because they were joint tortfeasors with the state, the satisfaction of the judgments in the court-of-claims action discharged them from liability.

Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]

The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]

Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]

Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries

свернуть