P and two Ds were members of a hunting party. Both Ds negligently fired at the same time at a quail in P's direction.
P was struck in the eye by a shot from one of the guns.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P against both Ds.
CA Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues:
When a P cannot determine which of multiple negligent Ds caused his injury, which D is liable?
Holding/Rule:
When a P cannot determine which of multiple negligent Ds caused his injury, all Ds are liable, and it is up to each D to absolve himself.
Reasoning:
Although the negligence of only one of them could have caused the injury, both should be liable.
To hold otherwise would be to exonerate both from liability, although each was negligent, and the injury resulted from such negligence.
This makes sense because it is near impossible for the P to prove who injured him. It is easier for Ds to provide the information to prove/disprove who is at fault.
They are both wrongdoers; thus, it should rest with each of them to absolve himself if he can.
