Bierczynski v Rogers
S. Ct. DE [1968]
Author:- Sam Biers

Joint and Several Liability

Relevant Facts: The Pls Cecil and Susan Rogers, and Dfs Robert Race and Ronald Bierczynski (18 and 17), were involved in an auto accident. The Dfs were engaged in a speed contest and as they came down a hill, side by side at twice the legal speed, the Pl’s car was approaching in the westbound lane.  Race tried to get his car back into the eastbound lane, lost control and struck the front of Pl’s car at nearly 70 mph.  Bierczynski’s car did not make contact with Pl’s car or left the eastbound lane.

Legal Issue(s): Whether participation in an automobile race is an act of concurrent negligence imposing liability even though one participant was not directly involved with the injury?

Court’s Holding: Yes

Procedure: Jury found the Dfs negligent and as a result of that neg the proximate cause of the Pl’s injuries. Bierczynski appeal.  Affirmed.

Law or Rule(s): Speed competition in automobiles on the public highway is negligence in the State of Delaware.  All who engage in racing on public highways do so at their own peril, and are liable for injuries and damages which result.

Court Rationale:   There was ample evidence to carry to the jury the issue of a race involving the dfs and the pls.  While engaged in said race Df Race struck Pl’s vehicle.  All who engage in a race on a highway do so at their own peril, and are liable for injury and damage sustained by a third party as a result thereof, regardless of which of the racing cars directly inflicted the injury or damage.  All parties engaged in a motor vehicle race on the highway are wrongdoers acting in concert, and each participant is liable for harm to a third party arising from the tortuous conduct of the other, because he has induced and encouraged the tort/act.  Dfs Race and Bierczynski were engaged in a speed competition, each was liable for the damages and injuries to the Pl’s herein, even though Bierczynski was not directly involved in the collision itself.

Plaintiff’s Argument: Dfs were both engaged in an illegal activity which caused damage and injury to the Pl, each Df encouraged and induced the other’s participation.

Defendant’s Argument: Df Bierczynski was not the actual cause of the injury to the Pls. Df Bierczynski did not leave his legal lane of travel, Df Race elected to deviate from the legal lane of travel.