construing joint tort-feasor under Pennsylvania law broadly and holding that release of secondarily liable tort-feasor did not release primarily liable tort-feasor
How later courts described this case
- construing joint tort-feasor under Pennsylvania law broadly and holding that release of secondarily liable tort-feasor did not release primarily liable tort-feasor
- noting that the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, 42 Pa.Con.Stat.Ann. § 8321 et seq., defines the term “joint tortfeasors” “quite broadly”.
- predicting this Court would hold that a release of a secondarily liable tortfeasor does not effectuate a release of a primarily liable tortfeasor
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
MOORE, Circuit Judge
(concurring):
I concur in the result. I agree that all appellees were joint tortfeasors and that “none of the other appellees was released by the release to Gray Line”, if by “other appellees” is meant appellees other than The Gray Line appellees. I would not speculate as to what the courts of Pennsylvania may decide in the joint tortfeasor field. It is clear, however, that Gray Line bought its peace vis-a-vis the Mouat Estate and that the consequences thereof should be governed by the laws of Pennsylvania.