Title: American Cas. Co. v. Billingsley
Citation: 260 S.W.2d 173
Docket Number: N/A
State: Tennessee
Issuer: Tennessee Supreme Court
Date: July 17, 1953

260 S.W.2d 173 (1953) AMERICAN CAS. CO. et al. v. BILLINGSLEY. Supreme Court of Tennessee. July 17, 1953. George F. Henry, Jr., Starkville, Miss., E. H. Boyd, Cookeville, for plaintiffs. H. H. Clark, Cookeville, for defendant. PREWITT, Justice. The trial court sustained a demurrer to the declaration to dismiss the case. This is a suit for contribution among tort-feasors and we think the case is controlled by Davis v. Broad Street Garage, 191 Tenn. 320, 232 S.W.2d 355, and Cohen v. Noel, 165 Tenn. 600, 56 S.W.2d 744. The controversy springs from an automobile accident involving the automobiles of Henry, one of the plaintiffs, and Billingsley, as a result of which Henry obtained and collected a judgment against Billingsley. It seems that Billingsley was on the wrong side of the road and to avoid a collision, Henry pulled out to the side of the road, skidded in gravel and struck the building owned by Claude Hensley and wife, Grace Hensley, doing substantial damage thereto. Billingsley's car was untouched. Following the suit and collection of the judgment by Henry against Billingsley, the Hensleys sued Henry and Billingsley for the amount of their damage to the building. It seems this case was dismissed as to Billingsley and a judgment entered against Henry for $485. The present suit seeks contribution against Billingsley. The trial judge was of the opinion that this was not a case for contribution. In this, we think he was in error. When Henry obtained a judgment against Billingsley, this settled the liability as between the two. There was no question of wilfulness in the case. While it may be that Henry was guilty of some negligence and evidently he was because the Hensleys recovered a judgment against him for damages to their building, yet under the allegations of the declaration and the stipulations, it appears that in so far as Billingsley was concerned, Henry was guilty only of passive negligence. As before stated, we think the two cases above referred to are controlling. In Davis v. Broad Street Garage, supra, this Court said [191 Tenn. 320, 232 S.W.2d 357]: The judgment below is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings.