Joint Tortfeasors. Damages. The two defendants, each mounted on a motor tricycle with a gasoline engine making a loud noise and emitting steam, came up behind the plaintiff who was driving slowly in a wagon and passed him at a high rate of speed, one on each side, causing his horse to shy so that his wagon wheel struck another wagon and the plaintiff and his wagon were injured. He brought a separate action against each defendant, and obtained a verdict against each. Held, that, both of the defendants having been found to be wrongdoers, it made no difference that there was no concert between them or that it was impossible to determine what portion of the injury was caused by each, that if each contributed to the injury both were bound and that whether each contributed was a question for the jury.
If two wrongdoers contribute to an injury they may be sued either jointly or severally, and in the latter case the plaintiff is entitled to judgment against each defendant for the full amount, although it can be satisfied but once.
LATHROP, J.
The only question which arises in these cases is whether the judge erred in refusing to give the instructions requested. The bill of exceptions does not set forth what instructions were given, and we must assume that they were appropriate to the case as presented by the evidence, and were correct.
The verdict of the jury has established the fact that both of the defendants were wrongdoers. It makes no difference that there was no concert between them, or that it is impossible to determine what portion of the injury was caused by each. If each contributed to the injury, that is enough to bind both. Whether each contributed was a question for the jury. Boston Albany Railroad v. Shanly, 107 Mass. 568, 578, and cases cited.
It makes no difference that the defendants were sued severally and not jointly. If two or more wrongdoers contribute to the injury, they may be sued either jointly or severally. McAvoy v. Wright, 137 Mass. 207. The first request for instructions was therefore rightly refused.
Nor was there any error in refusing to give the second request. If both defendants contributed to the accident, the jury could not single out one as the person to blame. There being two actions, the plaintiff was entitled to judgment against each for the full amount. There is no injustice in this, for a satisfaction of one judgment is all that the plaintiff is entitled to. Elliott v. Hayden, 104 Mass. 180. Savage v. Stevens, 128 Mass. 254. Luce v. Dexter, 135 Mass. 23, 26. McAvoy v. Wright, 137 Mass. 207. Galvin v. Parker, 154 Mass. 346. Worcester County v. Ashworth, 160 Mass. 186, 189.
Exceptions overruled.