Hill v. Edmonds

Citation. Hill v. Edmonds, 26 A.D.2d 554, 270 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1966)

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

CitationHill v. Edmonds, 26 A.D.2d 554, 270 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4012 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep’t June 13, 1966)

Brief Fact Summary. The Plaintiff Hill, (Plaintiff), was injured when the car he was riding in collided with a tractor left in the road without its lights on.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. When two separate acts of negligence produce a single harm, each tortfeasor is wholly responsible for the harm even though his act alone may not have caused it.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

Where separate acts of negligence combine to produce directly a single injury each tort-feasor is responsible for the entire result, even though his act alone might not have caused it.

View Full Point of Law

Facts. The Plaintiff was injured when the car the Plaintiff was riding in hit a tractor truck left parked in the road without its lights on. The driver of the car testified that she saw the tractor ahead of her before the collision and so may have been negligent in causing the accident. At trial the court dismissed the complaint against the owner of the tractor due to the testimony of the car’s driver.

Issue. Whether two separate tortfeasors can be liable for one injury that could not have resulted without the negligence of both parties.

Held. Multiple tortfeasors are each responsible for the entire injury and the complaint against the tractor’s owner must be reinstated.

Discussion. The accident would not have happened had the tractor’s owner not left the tractor in the road without its lights on. Because the harm could not have resulted without the negligence of both the driver of the car and the tractor’s owner, they both may be responsible for the injury.

Create New Group