# Rutherford v. Gray Line, Inc.

> Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · January 28, 1980 · 615 F.2d 944

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8910978

## Case

- **Full name:** William Carson RUTHERFORD, of the Estate of Darryl Buglass Mouat v. The GRAY LINE, INC., Gray Line Tours, Inc., Gray Line Transportation Company, Inc., Willie K. Thomas, Steven H. Hnatvik a/k/a Hnatuik, Sorensen Transportation Co., Inc., Arthur W. Sorensen, Sr., Arthur W. Sorensen, Jr., and Robert C. Sorensen
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- **Decided:** January 28, 1980
- **Citations:** 615 F.2d 944
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Moore
- **Judges:** Moore, Oakes
- **Cited by:** 11 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8910978

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- noting that the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, 42 Pa.Con.Stat.Ann. § 8321 et seq., defines the term “joint tortfeasors” “quite broadly”.

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8910978. Public record. Not legal advice.