TO CONTRIBUTE OR NOT TO CONTRIBUTE?--A BASIC INCONSISTENCY IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE

Authors

Abstract

X accepts an invitation to ride with his friend A, in the latter's coupe. B has a party of friends in his new limousine. Both drivers are careless; the cars collide; and X is injured. X brings suit against B, and the latter has A brought into court as a defendant, a proceeding permitted under the provisions of the Wisconsin code of civil procedure. B claims the right of contribution against A, in the event that X is successful in his suit, and also asks affirmative relief against A for the damage done to his limousine. A counters with a similar request for the damage done to his coupe. The jury finds (1) that X was not negligent; (2) that X was damaged to the extent of $1,500; (3) that A was negligent; (4) that A's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident; (S) that B was negligent; (6) that B's negligence was the proximate cause of the accident; (7) that A's coupe was damaged to the extent of $300; (8) that B's limousine was damaged to the extent of $:200. This is not a hypothetical question on a Iaw school examination, but a recent case before the Wisconsin supreme court. Mitchell v. Raymond et al. (Wis. 1923) 195 N. W. 855. The procedural aspect is treated on page 828,supra.

Recommended Citation

TO CONTRIBUTE OR NOT TO CONTRIBUTE?--A BASIC INCONSISTENCY IN THE LAW OF NEGLIGENCE, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 831 (1924).
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol22/iss8/9