I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 4 - I A- 0 1 9 1 4 - S CT J & J TI M BER CO M

PAN Y , A M I SS I SS I PPI CO RP OR AT

ION

v. REM BERT J . BROOM

E, S ON AND NEXT FR I EN D OF J AMESC. BR OOME, DE CE AS ED , AN D R EMBERT

J . BR OOME, FA T

HER AN

D N E X T F R I EN D O F S A R A H M . B R O O M

E, A M I NOR, DECEAS

ED D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/ 13/ 2004 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. M I CH AE L R. E UB ANKS COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: M ARI ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATT ORNEYS F OR APP EL LANT: W I LL I AM W
. M c KI NLE Y, J R. DOR RA NC E AUL T M AN AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : T
. J AC KS ON L YONS NATURE OF THE CAS E: CI VI L - P ERS ONA L I NJ URY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 05/ 04/ 2006 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E SM I T H , C . J. , C A R L SO N A N D D I C K I N SO N , JJ. DI CK I NSON, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1
. T h i s wr o n g f

u l d e a t h s u i t a r i s e s o u t o f a n a c c i d e n t b e t we e n a l o g t ru c k a n d a b u s . As par tof a s et t l ement , t he pl ai nt i ffs r el eas ed t he dr i verof t he l og t ruck fr om al l li abi l i t yand agr eed t o i ndemni fyhi m agai ns t t hi r d- par t y cl ai m s . T he ques t i on pr es ent ed i s w het hert he pl ai nt i ffs ’ s et t l ement w i th t he dr i verof t he l og t ruck pre cl udes r ecove r y agai ns t hi s empl oy er undera vi cari o u s l i abi l i t yt heor y . W hi l e t he A ppel l antr ai s es t w o addi t i onal i s s ues , t he d isp o sitio n o f

th is in iti a l q u e stio n re n d e rs th e re m a in in g tw o m o o t.2 B AC KGR OU ND F AC T S AN D P RO CE E DI NG S ¶2. J i m Sm i t h T rucki ng ( “Sm i t h”) , a bus i n ess en g ag ed in h au li ng l ogs fr om t i m ber

ven d o r s ’ y a r d s t o t i mbe r mi l l s , h i r e d Br e n t Gal a t a s ( “ Gal a t a s ” ) t o d r i v e i t s h a u l i n g t r uck. Ap p r o x i m a t e l yt h r e e t o f o u r m o n t h s b e f

o r e t h e a c c i d e n ta ti s s u e , S m i t h c o n t r a c t e d wi t h J &J T i m berC om pany( “J & J T i m ber ”) t o haul i t s l ogs . J & J T i m bers peci fi ed t he s peci es , t ype, l eng t h, cut, and am ou nt of t i m ber t o b e hau l ed to part i cularm i l l s byS m i t h’s dr i ver, G al at as. ¶3. O n N ov em ber 27 , 19 99 , G al at as deli vered tw o l oad s of J& J T i m ber’ s lo g s to its

s peci fi ed t i m b er y ar d. A ft erhaul i ng and unl oadi ng t he s econd l oad, G al at as w as dr i vi ng b a c k t o S m i t h ’ s h o u s e i n t h e u n l o a d e d t r u c k w h e n h e c o l l i d e d w i t h a b u s o c c u p i e d b y a fami l yof gos pel s i nger s on t hei rw ayt o per for m a conc er t
. T he col l i s i on di s i nt egr at ed t he f r o n to f t h e b u s , a n d t wo p e o p l e , J a me s C. Br o o me ( “ J a me s ” ) a n d S a r a h M
. Br o o me ( “Sar ah”) , w er e ki l l ed. ¶4. Pr i or t o i ns t i tut i ng l i t i gat i on, t he w ron g fu l death benef i ci ar i es of J ames and Sar ah, i ncl udi ng t he A ppel l ee Rem ber tJ
. B r oom e ( “B r oom e”) , r eac hed a se t t l ement w i t h G al at as
a n d S mi t h
. T h e s e t t l e me n t i n c l u d e d t wo d o c u me n t s e n t i t l e d , “ RE CE I P T , RE L E AS E AND IN D E M N IT Y A G R E E M E N T , ” rep rese n ti n g the resp ec ti v e intere sts of Jam es’ a n d S ara h ’s b e n e f i c i a r i e s . Bo t h a g r e e me n t s c o n t a i n e d s i mi l a rl a n g u a g e , q u o t e d i n r e l e v a n tp a r tb e l o w: Th e t e r m “ RELEA SED PA RTI ES ” a s us e d i n thi s RE CE I PT, RE LEA SE AND I NDEM NI TY AGREE M ENT , s h a l l i n c l u d e t h e f o l l o wi n g : J a me s “ J i m” S m ith , B rent G al at as , a n d A m e ri c a n R e lia b le In s u ra n c e C o m p a n y. . . . [ T h e w r o n g f

u l d e a t h b e n e f

i c i a r i e s ]
. . . d o h e r e b y RE LE AS E, ACQUI T A ND FO REVER DI S CH ARG E, a l l o f t h e s a i d RELEAS ED PARTI ES,3

col l ect i vel y and i ndiv idu a ll y , f rom any and al l act i ons and/ or caus es of act i on . . . [ r e s u l t i n g ] f r o m i n j u r i e s a n d / o r d a ma g e s we r e c e i v e d
. . . [i n t he in c id e n t]
. . . . [The w r ongful death benef i ci ar i es ]
. . . d o u n d er s t and t hatt hi s A gr eement eff ect s a R E L E A S E A N D D ISC H A R G E of al l ou r cl aim s . . . ar i s i ng outof, o r i n a n yw a yre la te d to th e a c c id e n t . . . . N ot w i t hs t andi ng anyt hi ng el s e cont ai ned her ei n t o t he contr ar y , i ti s agr eed, u n d erstoo d , an d sti p u la ted th at [the w ron g fu l dea th b en ef ici aries] .
. . are s p e c i f i c a l l y a n d e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v i n g , a n d n o t r e l e a s i n g , a n y a n d a l l c l a i ms w e m ay hav e of

any ki nd an d t ype w hat s oe ve r r e l at i ng t o t he i nc i de nt agai nst J& J T i m ber
. . . . [The w r ongful death benef i ci ar i es ] do w ar r antt hatw e ar e t he onl ypar t i es en ti tl ed to cl aim an d rec o v er da m ag es or othe rw ise m ak e an y re co v ery w hat s oeverr es ul t i ng fr om orarisi n g outof [the i nci dent ] and w e a g re e to d e fe n d , in d e m n ify , a n d h o ld h a r m le s s t h e R e lea se e s fr o m a n y a n d a ll c l ai m s and damage s , i nc l udi ng t hi r d- par t y c l ai m s f or damage s r e s ul t i ng f rom or i n any w ay ari s i ng out of t he i nj uri es , dam ages , and/ or deat h of [the d e c e a sed p er so n s] w h ich m a y b e m a d e b y a n y o th er p er so n (s), p arty (s ) , ent i t y ( s ) , or conce rn( s ) , w hat s oever . . . . (E m p h asis ad d ed ). ¶5
. O n N o v em b er 2 7 , 2 0 0 1 , B roo m e f il ed a w ron g fu l d ea th ac ti o n ag ains t J& J T im b er, char gi ng i tw i t h vi car i ous l i abi l i t yfort he neg li g en ce o f i t s empl oy ee, G al at as . A tt he concl us i on of t es t i m ony , t he i s s ue s ubm i t t ed t o t he j ur yw as w het herJ & J T i m bercoul d be hel d vi car i ous l yl i abl e forG al at as ’ negl i gence i n caus i ng t he cr as h. T o r eac h t hati s s ue, t he j ur yw as fi r s tr equi r ed t o det er m i ne w het herG al at as w as J & J T i m ber ’ s empl oy ee. ¶6. T he j ur y r etur ned a unani m ous ver di ct in favor of J & J T i m ber
. H ow ever , t he t r i al

c o u rt g ra n ted B ro o m e a n e w tr ia l, s tatin g it h a d m isin stru c ted th e ju rya n d im p ro p e rly

r es t r i ct ed B r oom e by for ci ng hi m t o abandon w hat t he t r i al cour t concl uded w as a vi abl e dualThe second issue cer tified for interlocutory appeal is whether the trial court erred in denying 1 J &J Timber ’s pere mptory instruction. The third issue cer tified for interlocutory appeal is whether thetria l c ourt

e rre d in gra nti ngB ro ome ’s motion

fo r a ne w tri a l. Be causewe c onclude there can be no vicarious liabili ty in this case, weneed not reac h the 2 qu e s ti o no f

G a lata s ’ e mp lo y

ment s tatu s . O ur

an a lys is p r o c e e d s o nth e a s s ump ti on a r gu en do that Galata s wa s J&J Ti mber’ s e mpl oye e , e ve n tho ugh J&J Ti mber ha s no t c on c e de d that po int . B ro ome make s n o c la im that th e c omp any wa s in depe nd e ntly

ne g lig e nt. 4 empl oy m ent t heor y of l i abi l i t y . O n O ct ober22, 2004, w e gr ant ed i nt er l ocut or yappea l and st ay ed fu rther proceedings. ¶7. O f t he t hr ee i s s ues pr es ent ed byJ & J T i m ber , w e s hal l addr es s onl y t he fi r s t , w hi ch 1

w e fi nd di s pos i t i ve of t h e ca s e. T he i s s ue pr es ent ed i s w het her , as a mat t erof l aw , t he

r el eas e of a t or t fea s oral so serv es as a r el eas e of the t or t fea s or ’ s empl oy erfr om cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i t y , des pi t e an a t t empt byt he r el eas ort o pr es er ve t he righ t to pur s ue s uch 2 cl ai m s. DI S CU S S I ON ¶ 8
. W h e n r e v i e wi n g i s s u e s o f l a w, t h i s Cour t engage s i n de novo r e v ie w . Seal y v. G odda rd , 910 So. 2d 502, 506 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng E l lis v. A nders on Tull

y Co. , 727 So. 2d 7 1 6 , 7 1 8 (M iss . 1 9 9 8 )); O str a n de r v . S ta te , 803 So. 2d 1172, 1174 ( M i s s . 2002) ( ci t i ng D ep ’t

o f Hu m a n S e rv s. v . G a ddis , 7 3 0 S o . 2 d 1 1 1 6 , 1 1 1 7 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 )). ¶ 9
. J& J T im b e r a rg u e s th a t B ro o m e ’s re lea se o f G a lata s an d a g re e m e n t to in d e m n if y h im againstal l t hir d-partycl ai m s effect i velyprecl ud e B room e from pu rs uing an a ct i on against J & J T i m berbas ed on vi car i ous l yl i abi l i t y . J & J T i m ber fur t her cont ends t hat w hen an i nj ur ed5

par t y r el eas es t he onl ynegl i gentact orfr om l i abi l i t y , a der i vat i ve cl ai m of l i abi l i t yagai ns tt he

e m p lo y e r i s e x tin g u is h e d
. ¶ 1 0
. J & J T i m ber a s s e r t s t h a t , s h o u l d Br o o me s u c c e e d i n p u r s u i n g a c l a i m of v i c a r i ous l i abi l i t y , a “c i r cl e of i ndemni t y ” w i l l r es ul t
. J & J T i m ber poi nt s out t hat i thas a comm on l aw ri gh tof indem nifi cat i on againstG al at as, w ho w as t he only act i vely neg l i gen t part y . T hu s, B roo m e w o u ld se ek reim b u rsem en t from G alatas o f an yjud g em en t aga inst i t. G alatas in turn

w ou l d s eek r ei m bu rs em ent from B room e pu rs uan t t o the i nd em nifi cat i on agreem ent. T hu s, in e f f e c t, B ro o m e w o u ld b e u lti m a telyre sp o n sib le f o r th e p a ym e n t o f

a n yju d g m e n t,

re n d e rin g m o o t B ro o m e ’s s u it ag a in st J & J T im b e r. J& J T im b e r a rg u e s th a t su c h “ c irc u ity of ac t i on” ca n onl ybe avoi ded by hol di ng t hat t he r el eas e of an empl oy ee bar s al l vi car i ous lia b ility c la im s a g a in s t th e e m p lo y e r. ¶ 1 1
. B ro o m e a rg u e s tha t M iss iss ip p i law p e rm its a th ird p a rty in ju re d b ya n e m p lo y e e to el ectt o s ue t he empl oy ee, t he em pl oy er , orbot h. A ccor di ngl y , B r oom e s ay s , t he empl oy ee and empl oy erar e j oi nt l yl i abl e foranydamages t o t he i nj ur ed par t y . B r oom e cont ends t hat underM i s s i s s i ppi C ode A nnot at ed Sect i on 85- 5- 1, a w r ongful death benef i ci ar y ’ s s et t l ement wi t h o n e p a r t yd o e s n o to p e r a t e t o r e l e a s e a n yo t h e rp a r t ya tf a u l t
. Ad d i t i o n a l l y , Br o o me poi nt s outt hathe r el eas ed G al at as onl yi n hi s i ndi vi dual ca p ac it y beca us e t he agr eement

e x p re s slyrese rve d the righ t t o p u rsue a c lai m ag ains t J& J T im b er a s G alatas’ em p loy er. B r oom e cont ends t he onl y w ay t o har m oni ze t he pr ovi s i ons of t he r el eas e i s t o i nt erpr ett hem i n a w ayt hatal l ow s hi m t o br i ng an ac t i on agai ns tJ & J T i m ber. N o tably , B r oom e neve r6

a r g u e s t h a t we s h o u l d u p h o l d o u r p r e v i o u s d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f t h i s i s s u e f r o m W . J. Runyon & S o n s, In c . v. D a v is , 605 So. 2d 38 ( M i s s . 1992) ( her ei naft er R unyon ), over r ul ed on ot her gr ounds by R i char ds on v. A P A C-Mis s is s i

ppi , I nc. , 6 3 1 S o . 2 d 1 4 3 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). R unyon and R i char ds on ¶12. A l t hough R unyon h o lds that the re lease o f a n ag en t has n o ef fe ct on the p ri n cipa l’ s vi car i ous l i abi l i t y , 605 So. 2d at43, J & J T i m berpoi nt s t o a s t at ement i n di cta in R i char ds on i ndi cat i ng t hatt he r el eas e of a n empl oy ee ba r s cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i t yagai ns tt he empl oy er , 631 So. 2d at151 fn. 7. J & J T i m ber advoca t es t he fur t her over rul i ng of R unyon and adopt i on of R i char ds on ’s di cta p o s itio n o n th is is s u e . ¶13. I n R unyon , t he pl ai nt i ff, D avi s , w as i nj ur ed w hen he c ol l i ded w i t h an as phal tt r uck obs cur ed b y t h e th i c k c l o u d o f d u s t i t c r e a t e d
. 6 0 5 So
. 2 d a t 4 0

- 4 1
. One i s s u e befor e t he C our tw as w het herD avi s coul d s ue t he t ruck dri ver ’ s put at i ve empl oy er , R uny on, even a ft er D a v is s e ttle d w ith th e d ri v e r a n d re le a s e d h im
. I d. at43. R uny on ar gued t hatt he s et t l ement eff ect ed a f ul l r ecove r yby D avi s , and al l ow i ng D avi s t o pur s ue a c l ai m agai ns ti tw oul d l ead to u n ju s t e n ri c h m e n t. I

d. T he C our tnot ed t hatD avi s had r es er ved hi s r i ght s agai ns tt he companyi n t he r el eas e agr eement , and w e foc us ed on t he fa v o rab le publ i c pol i cyof

e n c o u ra g in g se ttl e m e n ts, sta tin g “ [ t]h e re a re a ll so rts o f ra tio n a l re a so n s w h yo u r la w sh o u ld al l ow a pl ai nt i ff t o s et t l e w i t h l es s t han al l of m ul t i pl e def endant s and p roc ee d ag ai ns tt he

r emai ni ng defe ndantordefe ndant s . ” I d. Fi nal l y , w e found t hat beca us e no l anguage i n t he7

re lea se c laim e d th a t th e se ttl e m e n t w ith th e d riv e r f u llyc o m p e n sa ted h im , D a v is c o u ld p ro c e e d a g a in s t R u n y o n . I d. ¶ 1 4
. T h is C o u rt a lso h e ld th a t R u n y o n c o u ld b e f o u n d in d e p e n d e n tlyn e g lig e n t, no t m e re ly

v ic a ri o u s ly lia b le , f

o r i t s a c t i o n s l e a d in g to th e c ra s h
. I d. at42. W hi l e w e hel d t hatt he

r el eas e of the dr i verdi d notpr ecl ude an a ct i on agai ns tR uny on, w e bl ur r ed t he di s t i nct i on b e tw e e n m a in tain in g a n a c tio n a g a in st th e e m p lo y e r o n th e b a sis o f n e g lig e n c e d ire c tly at t r i but abl e t o t he empl oy erand negl i gence bas ed so lel y o n vi car i ous l i abi l i t y . T hi s i s t he keyi nqui r yi n t hi s cas e and the di s t i nct i on di s cus s ed i n di cta i n R i char ds on . ¶15. F i nal l y , t he Runyon C ou rt held t hat t he em ploy ee/ i nd epen den t con t ract or a n a ly sis b o ils d o w n to a sin g le q u e stio n : “w h e th e r th e p rojec t o w n e r m a in tain s a sig n if ica n t de jure ri g h t or de f

act o pow erof contr ol over t he per for m ance of as pect s of t he w or k fr om w hi ch t he i nj ur yhas ar i s en or to w h ic h i ti s r eas onabl yi nci dent
. ” I d. at46. D i s pos i ng of t he tr ad it ion al fa ctor-b ase d a n aly sis, w e h eld, as a m att er o f law , the d ri v er w as R u n y o n ’s

e m p lo y e e , th u s m a k in g R u n y o n v ic a ri o u s ly lia b le f o r t h e d ri v e r’ s n e g lig e n c e . I d. at47. ¶16. In R i char ds on , this C o u rt t o o k e x p r e s s e x c e p t i o n t o t h e l a s t h o l d i n g i n R unyon . B eca us e R unyon i ncor r ect l yanal y zed t he empl oy m ent r el at i ons hi ps i nvol ved, w e overr ul ed t he case a s to its in d e p e n d e n t c o n tr a c to r a n a lysis
. R i char ds on , 6 3 1 S o . 2 d at 1 5 2
. H o w ev er,
w e di d notexpr es s l yover rul e Runyon as t o i t s decl ar at i on, not ablyuns uppor t ed byany M i s s i s s i ppi aut hor i t i es , t hatt he r el ea se of an a gentdoes notaff ectcl ai m s of vi car i ousThe Ru n yon Court cited Granq uist only once, a nd that was for

the proposition that the 3 e mp lo ye r , Runyo n , h a d a right o f in d e mn it y o f an d f r o m it s e mp lo ye e , th e driv er. Run yon , 605 So.2d at 48. The Runyon Court never considere d Granq uist at any point during its discussion of how the release of the sol e tortfeasor should aff ect claims of vi carious liability ag ainst the employer. 8 l i abi l i t yagai ns tt he pr i nci pal
. I n d icta , t hough, w e i ndi cat ed t hat t hi s hol di ng i n Runyon w as
su sp e c t: W hi l e an e m pl oy erand hi s empl oy ee a r e j o intl yand s ever al l yl i abl e for i nj ur i es caus ed byt he empl oy ee i n t he cour s e of hi s empl oy m ent , m aybe s ued j oi nt l yors ever al l y , and w e have hel d t hat w her e bot h ar e sued, t he j ur ym ay b e in s tr u c te d it c a n re tu rn a v e rd ic t a g a in s t th e m b o th o r e ith e r o f th e m , t hey are not j oi nt t ort f

eas ors . J o int t o rtfea so r claim s a rise w h er e th e se p a ra te w r o ng f ul c o nd uc t o f t w o o r mor e i nd i v i du a l s c o mbi ne t o c a us e a n i nj ur y, and each because of

hi s conduct bears s om e res ponsi bi l i t y f or t he i nj ury . T h e r e i s a g o o d r e a s o n t o p e r mi t p l a i n t i f f t o s e t t l e a s t o o n e o f t h e j oi nt to rt f e a s o rs , re s e rv in g th e ri g h t to p ro c e e d a g a in s t th e o th e r w ro n g d o e r. W here t he pri nci pal i s s ought t o be hel d l i abl e f or a cts of

hi s agent , as here, how e ve r , onl y o ne , t he e m pl oye e , has c omm i t t e d any w r ong . Se t t l e m e nt w i t h one and t hen proceedi ng agai nst t he ot her i n t hi s ki nd of c as e bears f ar gr e at e r s c r ut i ny t han s e t t l i ng w i t h a j oi nt t or t f e as or and p roce e di ng agai nst t he ot her
. W e ar e notr equi r ed t o addr es s t hi s ques t ion in the ca s e, h o w ev er. I d. at 15 1 fn
. 7 (em p h asis ad d ed ; ci tat ion o m it ted). ¶17. Pr i ort o t he Runyon deci s i on, w e hel d i n G r anquis t v. Cr ys tal Springs L um berC o. , 1 S o .2 d 2 1 6 , 2 1 8 (M iss . 1 9 4 1 ), th a t w h e re a p lain tiff re c o v e re d a ju d g m e n t ag a in st th e so le to rtf e a so r, a s u b se q u e n t su it ag a in st h is em p lo y e r w a s b a rre d b e c a u se th e w ro n g w a s le g a lly

s at i s fi ed. T he C our ts t at ed:

3 I tfur t herfol l ow s as a l ogi cal lega l co n sequence of w hathas been s ai d t hat w hen t he t hi r d per s on, w i t h t he ful l know l edge al l eged i n t he quot ed pl ea, has bys ui toract i on had a r ecove r yagai ns tt he age ntorem pl oy ee f ort he w r ong comm i t t ed byt he age ntorempl oy ee a s t he s ol e ac t or i n t he comm i s s i on of t he9

w ro n g , t he l i abi l i t y of

t he pri nci pal or m as t er w hi ch w as s ol el y a deri vat i ve of , or a d ep en d en cy f

rom , and i dent i cal w i t h t he t ort of t he agent or s e r va nt , be c omes m e r ge d i nt o t he j udgment r e c ov e r e d ag ai ns t t he ag e nt o r se rv a n t i f that j udgm entbe col l ect i bl e, fort hatt he w r ong has t hen bee n l egal l ys at i s fi ed and no subse quent or s eparat e act i on agai nst t he pri nci pal or m as t e r w i l l be al l ow e d. Id . ( E m phas i s added)
. O f cour s e, i n G ran qu ist , t he plai nt i ff f i r s ts ued t he negl i gent empl oy ee, r ece i ved a j udgm ent , and t hen pur s ued an a ct i on agai ns tt he empl oy erbas ed on

v ic a ri o u s lia b ility. I

d. at218. I n t he i ns t ant cas e, B r oom e s et t l ed w i t h t he negl i gent

em ploy ee and recei ved com pen sat i on befo re fi l i ng sui t , and t hen pu rs ued an acti on against J & J T im b e r b a s e d o n v ic a ri o u s lia b ility. N o n e th e le s s , G ran qu ist ’s p rin c ip les a re a p p lica b le to the ca se a t bar. ¶18. W e r eac hed a s im il ar resul ti n L ow er y v. Statew i de H

eal thcar e Ser vi ces, I

nc. , 585 So. 2d 778, 779 ( M i s s . 1991)
. I n Lowery , t hi s C our thel d t hata s t atut e of l i m i t at i ons bar agai ns ta nur s e i n a medi cal m al pr act i ce c as e al s o bar r ed s ui tagai ns tt he nur s e’ s empl oy er
w her e t he empl oy er ’ s “l i abi l i t yw as pr edi cat ed s ol el yupon t he doctr i ne of r es pondeat

s uper i or . ” I

d. W e no t ed t he gen eral rul e “t hat a sui t barr ed b ya st at ute of l i m i t at i on against

a n a g e n t w ill lik e w ise b a r th e sa m e c laim a g a in st th e p rin c ip a l w h o se liab ili tyis b a se d so lely upon t he pr i nci pal and age ntr el at i ons hi p, and nots om e act o r c o nductof t he pr i nci pal

s epar at e and a par tfr om t he ac torconductof t he age nt
. ” I d. at780. ¶19. A n act i on agai ns tan em p loy er b ased on t he doctr i ne of respond eat s up eri or i s a der i vat i ve cl ai m ar i s i ng s ol el youtof t he negl i gent conduct of i t s empl oy ee w i t hi n t he s cope
o f h is orherempl oy m ent
. L os s of cons or t i um i s s i m i l ar l yder i vat i ve, and M i s s i s s i ppi l aw10

di ct at es t hatif the under l y i ng per s onal i nj ur ycl ai m i s di s pos ed of, t he l os s of cons or t i um
c la im c a n n o t b e m a in ta in e d o n its o w n . McCoy v. C oloni al B anking C o. , I

nc. , 572 So. 2d 8 5 0 , 8 5 2 (M iss . 1 9 9 0 ). W h ile B ro o m e d id n o t h a v e h is c laim s a g a in st G a lata s th ro w n o u t, he vol unt ar i l y s et t l ed t hem and re l eas ed G al at as fr om t he t hr eatof anyfur t heract i on. T he p rin c ip les p r e c lu d in g a lo ss o f c o n so rtiu m c laim w h e n th e u n d e rly in g a c tio n is g o n e a p p ly

e q u a l l yt o t h i s c a s e wi t h r e s p e c tt o a n e mp l o y e r ’ s v i c a r i o u s l i a bi l i t y . O n c e Br o o me d i s c h a r g e d Ga l a t a s , t h e p u r e l yd e r i v a t i v e v i c a r i o u s l i a b i l i tyc l a i m a g a i n s tJ &J Ti mb e rb e c a me bar r ed. ¶20. H avi ng s et t l ed w i t h G al at as and r el eas ed hi m fr om l i abi l i t y , and abs ental l egat i ons of i ndepende ntnegl i gence on t he par tof J& J T i m ber , B r oom e maynotm ai nt ai n an ac t i on
a g a in st th e c o m p a n y . T h e Io w a S u p re m e C o u rt h a s a d e p tly sta ted th e re a so n in g b e h in d th is pr i nci pl e: T he “pe r cent age of

negl i gence ” at t r i but abl e t o t he conduc tof t he s erv ant cons t i tut es t he ent i r e “si ngl e shar e” of l i abi l i t yat t r i but abl e j oi nt l yt o t he mast er a n d se rv a n t .
. . . B e c a u se th is p e rc e n tag e o f n e g lig e n c e re p re se n ts th e “ sin g le sh a re ” o f liab ili tyc o v e re d b yth e c o m m o n liab ili ty o f th e m a ste r an d se rv a n t, t he mast eri s nece ssaril yr el eas ed fr om vi car i ous l i abi l i tyfort he r el eas ed se rv a n t’s m isc o n d u c t. B i ddle v. S a rtoriMem ’ l Hos p. , 518 N
. W
. 2d 795, 798 ( I ow a 1994) ( ci t i ng Hor j es iv. A nders on , 353 N
. W
. 2d 31 6 , 3 1 8 ( N
. D
. 1984) )
. T he cour ts t at ed t hat , “bec aus e vi car i ous liab ili ty d e riv e s so lely f ro m th e p rin c ip a l’s leg a l r e latio n to th e w ro n g d o e r, se ttl e m e n t w ith t h e t o r t f e a s o rr e mo v e s t h e b a s i s f o r a n y a d d i t i o n a l r e c o v e r y f r o m t h e p r i n c i p a l u p o n t h e s a me11

act s of negl i gence . ” B iddle , 518 N
. W
. 2d at798 ( ci t i ng C opeland v. Hum ana of K y. , I nc. , 7 6 9 S .W .2 d 6 7 , 7 0 (K y . C t. A p p . 1 9 8 9 ))
. ¶ 2 1
. W h e r e a p a r t y ’ s s u i t a g a i n s t a n e mpl o y e r i s bas ed on resp o n d ea t sup eri or , t he vi car i ous l i abi l i t ycl ai m i t s el f i s ext i ngui s hed w hen t he s ol el y negl i gent empl oy ee i s r el eas ed. T her e ca n be no as s es s m ent of damages agai ns t t he empl oy er w hen no act i on can be br ought

a g a in st th e o n lyn e g lig e n t p a rt y - th e e m p lo y e e . T o th e e x ten t th a t Runyon h o ld s th a t a

v ica rio u s lia b ili tyc laim c a n b e m a in tain e d a g a in st th e e m p lo y e r a f ter th e e m p lo y e e is

re lea se d , w ith o u t an a lleg a tio n o f in d e p e n d e n t n e g li g e n c e b yth e e m p lo y e r, th a t ca se is

over rul ed. The “ Ci r c l e o f

I nd e mni t y” ¶ 2 2
. W e n o w a d d r e s s J & J Ti mber ’ s “ c i r c l e o f i n d e mn i t y ” a r g u me n t
. S h o u l d Br o o me
s ucce ed i n hi s s ui tagai ns tJ & J T i m ber , t he companycl ai m s i tw oul d as s erti t s comm on l aw
r i g h to f i n d e m n i t ya g a i n s tGa l a t a s . T h i s c o m m o n l a w r i g h to f i n d e m n i t ywo u l d a l l o w J &J T i m ber t o recov er al l t he dam ages i tm ustpayt o B room e as a r esul tof the act i on s of G al at as, th e o n ly ac tiv e ly n e g lig e n t p a rt y . See G ran qu ist , 1 So. 2d at218. ¶23. I n tur n, G al at as coul d r el yon hi s cont r actual i ndemni t yr i ght s ar i s i ng fr om t he r el eas es sig n e d b yB ro o m e . T h e re lea se s s tate , in r e lev a n t p a rt: [ T h e w ro n g f

u l d e a th b e n e f

icia rie s] a g re e to d e f

e n d , ind e m n if

y , an d h o ld harm l ess th e R el easees [G al at as] from anyand al l cl ai m s and d am ages, i ncl udi ng t hi r d- par t ycl ai m s fordamages r es ul t i ng fr om ori n anyw ayar i s i ng out of t he i nj ur i es , damages , and/ ordeath of [the dec eas ed per s ons ] w hi ch may b e m ad e b yan yo ther p erso n (s), p arty (s), en ti ty (s), o r co n ce rn(s), w h atso ev er.12

¶24. Fol l ow i ng t he ci r cl e of i ndemni t yt o i t s eventual concl us i on, a hypot het i cal j udgement of $1, 000 w o u l d b e c o l l e c t e d b yBr o o me f r o m J & J Ti mbe r , who i n tu r n wou l d s e ek

r ei m bur s ement of t he $1, 000 fr om G al at as , w ho w oul d i n tur n s eek r ei m bursem entfr om B r oom e. I n t he fi nal anal y s i s , al l t hr ee pa r t i es w oul d be ri ght back w her e t heys t ar t ed. St at ed d if f e re n tly , the “ c irc le o f

in d e m n ity ” r e n d e r s B ro o m e ’s c laim s m o o t b e c a u se h e w o u ld , in

a f f e c t, p a y h is o w n ju d g e m e n t. See D ennis v. Southeas ter n K ansas G as C o. , I

nc. , 610 P. 2d 6 2 7 , 6 3 3 (K an . 1 9 8 0 ). ¶25. C ont r ar y t o t hi s C our t ’ s as s er t i on i n R unyon , 6 0 5 S o .2 d a t 4 3 , elim in a tin g th e c irc u ity of ac t i on t hatar i s es fr om an i nj ur ed par t y ’ s vi car i ous l i abi l i t ycl ai m agai ns tan empl oy er
w hen t he negl i gentempl oy ee ha s been r el eas ed ac tual l y encour ages s et t l ement and pr om ot es fi nal i t yi n act i ons . A s t he Supr eme C our tof Sout h D akot a not ed, “[t ] he r at i on ales of pr event i ng ci r cui t yof act i on and encour agement of s et t l ement compl ement one another
. T he

c o m p lem e n tar ya sp e c ts o f b o th ra tio n a les se rv e a n o th e r im p o rta n t g o a l: fin a lity . P u b lic pol i cyfavor s fi nal i t y , t hus avoi di ng ci r cui t yof ac t i on t hati s m er el yd eriva ti ve and

s econda r y . ” E state of

W il li am s v. Va n deb erg , 6 2 0 N .W .2 d 1 8 7 , 1 9 0 (S .D . 2 0 0 0 ). See a l so T heophelis v. L ansing G en. Hos p. , 4 2 4 N
. W
. 2 d 4 7 8 , 4 8 0 (M ich. 19 8 8 ). ¶26. A m aj or i t y of s t at es have adopt ed t he pos i t i on t hat t he r el eas e of a t or t fea s ort her eby

r el eas es t he t or t fea s or ’ s pr i nci pal for al l cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i t y , des pi t e anyr es er vat i on
o f ri g h ts
. See, e. g. , A lvar ez v. N ew H aven R egis ter

, I nc. , 7 3 5 A
. 2 d 3 0 6 , 3 1 5 (C o n n . 1 9 9 9 ); G il ber t v. Sycam or e Mun. Hos p. , 6 2 2 N .E .2 d 7 8 8 , 7 9 7 (Ill. 19 9 3 ); 4 8 0 ; B iddle , 518 N
. W
. 2d13

at799; At

k in s o n v . W

i c h i ta Clin i c, P. A. , 7 6 3 P .2 d 1 0 8 5 , 1 0 9 1 -9 2 (K a n . 1 9 8 8 ); Cope land , 769 S. W
. 2d at70; K

el l y v. A von T

ape, I nc. , 6 3 1 N
. E
. 2 d 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 5 (M ass. 19 9 4 ); T h e o p h e lis , 4 2 4 N .W .2 d a t 4 8 0 ; R e e d o n o f Fariba u lt

, Inc. v. Fi delit

y & G u ar. Ins. U nder w r i ters, I

nc. , 4 1 8 N .W .2 d 4 8 8 , 4 9 1 (M in n . 1 9 8 8 ); P i on eer A n im al Clin i c v. G arry , 4 3 6 N .W .2 d 1 8 4 , 1 8 8 (N e b . 1 9 8 9 ); Horj esi , 35 3 N
. W
. 2d at31 8 ; Ma m a lis v. A tlas Van L ines, I nc. , 5 6 0 A .2 d 1 3 8 0 , 1 3 8 3 (P a . 1 9 8 9 ); Va n deb erg , 620 N
. W
. 2d at191. W e adoptt he pos i t i on advoca t ed byt hes e cour t s t hatt he i nj ur ed p arty ’s r el eas e of a n empl oy ee ext i ngui s hes al l cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i t yagai ns tt he empl oy er , des pi t e anyr es er vat i on of ri gh t s. M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tate d S ec ti o n 8 5 -5-1 ¶27. B r oom e cont end s that the ri ghtof an i nj ur ed per s on t o s et t l e w i t h and r el eas e one to rtf e a so r w h ile res e rv in g h is righ t to p ro c e e d a g a in st oth e rs w h o m a yb e leg a llyre sp o n sib le h a s b e e n u p h e ld in a lo n g lin e o f c a se s. W h ile th is m a yb e a c o rre c t ar g u m e n t, i t is in a p p o site her e. G al at as and J & J T i m ber m ay be j oi nt l y l i abl e, butt heyar e n o t jo in t to rt f e a s o rs . See G ran qu ist , 1 So. 2d at218. “J oi ntt or t fea s orcl ai m s ar i s e w her e t he s e p a r ate w ron g ful

con du ctof tw o o r m ore i nd i vidual s com bine to c a u se a n in ju ry , an d e a c h b e c a u se o f h is conductbear s s om e r es pons i bi l i t y for t he i nj ur y . ” R i char ds on , 631 So. 2d at151 fn. 7 ( ci t i ng G ran qu ist , 1 S o .2 d a t 2 1 8 )(e m p h a sis a d d e d ). H e re , G a lata s is th e so le to rtf e a so r. T h e re is no appor t i onm entof fa ul tr equi r ed i n t hi s cas e bec aus e t he onl yper s on w ho comm i t t ed any

w ro n g w a s G a la ta s .14

¶28
. B ro o m e p o in ts t o M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 85 -5- 1 as supp ortf o r h is po si t i on . T he p ort i on of the provis i on rel i ed o n b yB room e st at es: In a ll ca se s o f

jo in t o r jo in t an d se v e ra l in d e b ted n e ss , th e c re d ito r m a yse ttl e orcompromi s e w i t h and r el eas e anyone or m o re of s uch debt or s ; and t he set t l em ent orrel ease shal l no t affect t he r i gh t or rem edy of t he credit or agai nst t he ot herdebt or s fort he amount r emai ni ng due and u n p aid, a nd s hal l not op erat e t o rel ease anyof the other s of t he sai d d ebtor s. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 85- 5- 1 ( 1972). H o w ever , t he s t atut e addr es s es , and t he ca s es ci t ed by B r oom e i nvol ve, cl ai m ant s s et t l i ng w i t h one j oint t ort fea sor and t hen pur s ui ng a r emedy

a g a in st an other j oint

t ort f easor w h o c a u se d th e w ro n g , n o t o n e to rtf e a so r a n d a v ica rio u sly lia b le e m p lo y e r a s in th is c a s e . See C ountr y C lub o f J a cks on v. Sauci er , 498 So. 2d 337 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ) (r elea se o f d ri v er d id n o t release co u n tryclub as c o u n tryclub an d d ri v er w ere i ndepende nt l yl i abl e t or t fea s or s - dr i vernegl i gent l yoper at ed c a r , count r ycl ub s er ved al cohol to v isib lyin to x ica ted h o s t) ; Sm i th v. Fal ke , 474 So. 2d 1044 ( M i s s . 1985) ( r el eas e of one fo ll o w ing d ri v er d id n o t r elea se se co n d fo ll o w ing d ri v er i n rea r-en d er acti o n - bo th d ri v ers
w e re in d e p e n d e n tly liab le f o r c o n trib u tin g to th e a c c id e n t); Medl ey v. W ebb , 288 So. 2d 846 ( M i s s . 1974) ( pl ai nt i ff mays ue t w o orm or e dr ivers w h o cont r i but ed t o t he ac ci dent , but p lai n ti ff m ay o n ly co ll ec t d am ag es o n ce ); L ee v. W iley B untin A dj uster

, I nc. , 204 So. 2d 479 (M iss. 1 9 6 7 ) (r elea se o f in su rer d id n o t r elea se a d juster as insu re r a n d a d juster w ere i ndepende nt l yl i abl e t or t fea s or s - ins ur erfai l ed t o paycl ai m , adj us t erm ade

m i s r epr es ent at i ons )
. A s s uch, Sect i on 85- 5- 1 i s i nappos i t e.15

R es ervat i on of

R i ght s A gai nst t he E m pl oy er ¶29. B r oom e al s o cl ai m s t hatt he r el eas e execut ed i n favor of G al at as onl yr el eas ed G al at as i n hi s i ndi vi dual capa ci t yand notas t he empl oy ee of J & J T i m ber
. I n acc or dance w i t h our hol di ng above, t he r el eas e of a negl i gentempl oy ee, i n anycapa ci t y , bar s al l cl ai m s of vi car i ous l i abi l i t yagai ns t t he em pl oy er , des pi t e a r es er vat i on of ri ght s . B r oom e s ugges t s t hat t h e p u b l i c p o l i c yo f

e n c o u r a g i n g s e t t l e me n t s wo u l d b e d a m a g e d i f h e c o u l d n o ts u e J &J T im b e r a f

ter se ttl in g w ith a n d re lea sin g G a lata s. B ro o m e c ites a d isc u ss io n o f se ttl e m e n ts

a n d S e c t i o n 8 5
- 5
- 1 f

r o m McBr i de v . Ch e v r o n U. S. A. , 6 7 3 S o . 2 d 3 7 2 , 3 7 9 -80 (M iss. 1 9 9 6 ),

a c ase that h as be en statu tori ly o v erru led by M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 8 5 -5-7
. In

a ca s e i nvol vi ng j oi ntt or t fea s or s , t hi s C our ts t at ed, “a de fenda ntw hos e negl i gence has been found t o have pr oxi m at el ycaus ed i nj ur yt o anot her per s on s houl d notbe al l ow ed t o es cape lia b ility f

o r h is n e g lig e n c e b y t h e f o rt u ity th a t a c o -d e f

e n d a n t h a s s e ttle d p ri o r t o tr ia l.” McB r i de , 673 S o . 2 d at 380. H ow ever , t hi s cas e i nvol ves nei t herj oi ntt or t fea s or s nort he

n ee d fo r ap p o rt ion m en t of fa u lt
. A s su c h , th e c a s e s an d statu tes cit ed b yB roo m e a re irre lev a n t. CO NC L US I ON ¶30. W e h o ld tod ay t hat t he r el eas e of a t or t fea s or oper at es t o bar cl ai m s pr edi cat ed on

v ica rio u s li a b ili ty a g a in st th e to rtf e a so r’s e m p lo y e r. T o th e e x ten t Runyon hol ds ot her w i s e, i t i s o v e r ru l e d
. Our h o l d i n g h a s n o i mpa c t o n t h e r e l e a s e o f o n e t o r t f e a s o r w hen j oi nt t or t fea s or s ar e i nvolved , an d i tdoes notaff ectcl ai m s agai ns tan empl oy erw ho w as16

i nd epen den t l yneg l i gen t , rather t han sol el y deri vati vely neg l i gen t
. A ccordi ng l y , w e dis m i ss B roo m e’s v icariou s li ab il ityclaim ag ains t J& J T im b er. ¶31. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R AND C OBB , P . J J . AND CARL S ON, J . , CONCUR. EAS LEY AND G RAV ES , JJ . , DI S S ENT W I THO UT S EPARATE W RI TTEN OP I NI ON . DI AZ AN D R AN DO L P H, J J . , NO T P AR T I CI P AT I NG .