NO. 92-130 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1993 

LARRY BOYKEN, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

v. 

STEVEN STEELE, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

H. William Coder, Attorney at Law, 

Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Patrick F. Flaherty, Attorney at Law, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: August 6, 1992 

Decided: February 11, 1993 
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court. 

Plaintiff Larry Boyken brought this action against defendant 

Steven Steele to recover damages for intentional assault and 

battery. A jury assessed Boyken's damages at $2500, but found that 

Boyken was 75 percent responsible for the incident which caused his 

injuries. The District Court granted Boyken's motion for a 

judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and awarded the full amount 

of damages. The District Court did not allow offset against 

amounts previously received by Boyken for the same injuries in a 

negligence settlement with Lee's Northside Bar. Prom this 

judgment, Steele appeals. We reverse. 

The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: 

Was plaintiff entitled to recover damages without regard to 

amounts collected from another defendant as compensation for the 

same injuries? 

This action arises from a barroom fight between Larry Boyken 

and Steven Steele on the evening of July 25, 1990, which resulted 

in facial injuries to Boyken. Boyken filed a complaint in District 

Court naming Steele and Lee's Northside Bar in Great Falls as 

co-defendants. He alleged that Steele had committed assault and 

battery and that the bar had been negligent. 

Prior to trial, Boyken settled with the bar's insurance 

carrier for $5000. The bar was discharged from any further 

liability, and the release further stated that any claims for 

contribution or indemnity against the bar were extinguished. The 

complaint against the bar was then dismissed. 

2 
The claim against Steele was tried in October 1991, and the 

jury found that Steele had committed assault and battery when he 

"sucker punched" Boyken in the eye. The jury found that Boyken's 

actual damages as a result of that incident totalled $2500. 

However, the jury also found that Boyken had used profane and 

abusive language and had challenged Steele to fight him, and was 

therefore responsible for 75 percent of his own damages. 

Boyken moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant 

to Rule 50(b), M.R.Civ.P., and argued that the doctrine of 

comparative negligence should not be applied to bar recovery in 

cases based upon intentional torts. The District Court agreed, and 

on December 5, 1991, granted a directed verdict in favor of Boyken. 

The court held it was error to instruct the jury on the doctrine of 

comparative negligence, and pursuant to the jury verdict, entered 

judgment for Boyken in the amount of $2500. 

The District Court also held that the terms of the release 

signed by Boyken and the bar had clearly reserved Boyken's right to 

sue for the intentional tort of assault, and that the settlement 

against the bar should not be offset against the damages recovered 

from Steele. Therefore, the court concluded that Boyken was 

entitled to a judgment of $2500 against Steele, with no offset 

against amounts recovered in the previous settlement. Steele 

appeals from this decision. 

We need not address the issue raised by Steele regarding 

whether it was proper to apply comparative negligence in this 

situation, because we conclude that Boyken was fully compensated 

3 
for his injuries by the bar and is not entitled to recover an 

additional damage award under any legal theory. 

The jury, after hearing testimony and considering the 

evidence, found that Boyken had incurred actual damages in the 

amount of $2500. That finding has not been challenged or appealed. 

Furthermore, Boyken received $5000 from the bar in a voluntary 

settlement for those same damages. The law is clear in Montana 

that when a joint tort-feasor settles with a claimant, the 

claimant's recovery against the remaining tort-feasor is to be 

reduced dollar-for-dollar by the consideration paid by the settling 

tort-feasor. State ex rel. Deere & Co. V. D&ict Court ( 19 8 6 ) , 2 2 4 Mont. 3 8 4 , 

386, 730 P.2d 396, 398. (Seealso whitiEgv.state (lYYl), 248 Mont. 207, 

810 P.2d 1177; Madduxv.Bunch (1990), 241 Mont. 61, 784 P.2d 936; 

Kuhnkev. Fisher (1987), 227 Mont. 62, 740 P.2d 625.) This policy 

provides a single satisfaction for a single injury. kfaa%I.x, 784 

P.2d at 940. 

In this case, Boyken raised claims against Steele and the bar 

as joint tort-feasors, alleging intentional assault and battery, 

and negligence, respectively. These alleged acts together resulted 

in the facial injuries sustained by Boyken. There can only be one 

amount of actual damages as a result of those injuries. The jury 

found that amount was $2500. Since the $5000 Boyken received in 

the settlement with the bar exceeds his total actual damages, 

Boyken is entitled to no additional compensatory damages from 

Steele. 

4 
We hold the District Court erred when it entered the judgment 

against Steele in the amount of $2500 without allowing an offset in 

the amount previously received by Boyken as compensation for the 

same injuries. We reverse and remand for further proceedings 

consistent with this opinion. 

We concur: 

5