Case Name: Eileen R. HOITT, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hoitt v. Richard W. HALL
Court: Maine Supreme Judicial Court
Jurisdiction: Maine
Decision Date: 1995-07-07
Citations: 661 A.2d 669
Docket Number: 
Parties: Eileen R. HOITT, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hoitt v. Richard W. HALL.
Judges: Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.
Reporter: West's Atlantic Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 661
Pages: 669–677

Head Matter:
Eileen R. HOITT, Individually and as Personal Representative of the Estate of John Hoitt v. Richard W. HALL.
Supreme Judicial Court of Maine.
Argued Jan. 3, 1995.
Decided July 7, 1995.
Arthur J. Greif (orally), Lowry & Associates Attorneys, Bangor, for plaintiff.
Christopher C. Taintor (orally), Norman, Hanson & DeTroy, Portland, for defendant.
Before WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, GLASSMAN, CLIFFORD, RUDMAN, DANA, and LIPEZ, JJ.

Opinion:
RUDMAN, Justice.
Eileen Hoitt, individually and as personal representative of the estate of John Hoitt, appeals from the denial by the Superior Court (Penobscot County, Sawfley, J.) of her motion for a new trial of her legal malpractice claim against Richard W. Hall. Eileen contends that a number of errors in eviden-tiary rulings and the irrationality of the jury's award of damages required the trial court to grant a new trial. Hall cross-appeals, seeking entry of judgment in his favor.
John Hoitt died following an accident in which the pick-up truck he was driving struck a snowplow truck owned by the State of Maine and operated by Jacqueline Lee Ware, a state employee. John had borrowed the pick-up truck he was driving from a neighbor, Thomas Thurlow. Eileen retained attorney Hall to represent her in a wrongful death action. Hall failed to file a notice of the tort claim as required by the Maine Tort Claims Act , and Eileen lost the opportunity to sue the State. Hall's failure to file the requisite notice was acknowledged by the parties.
Eileen commenced an action against Thur-low for negligence and Hall for legal malpractice. She settled with Thurlow for $50,-000 and dismissed her complaint against him with prejudice and without costs. The legal malpractice case required Eileen to prove that she would have recovered against the State - if Hall had filed a timely claim. The court ruled that the jury would apportion fault only between John and the State of Maine, rather than among John, the State, and Thurlow. The jury found both the State's employee and John to have been negligent. The jury determined Eileen's damages to be $60,000 for pecuniary loss suffered as a result of John's death, $15,000 for Eileen's loss of consortium, and $15,000 for John's conscious pain and suffering. The jury then reduced the total damages of $90,-000 by $40,000 to account for John's negligence, thus awarding Eileen $50,000. The court denied Eileen's motion for a new trial and awarded $0.00 to reflect the settlement reached with Thurlow.
Adequacy of the Damages
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Hall, see Stubbs v. Bartlett, 478 A.2d 690, 692 (Me.1984), and deferring to the jury on issues of credibility, id., we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's ruling that the jury's award of damages was not the product of bias, prejudice, improper influence, mistake of law, or disregard of the facts. Currier v. Cyr, 570 A.2d 1205, 1210 (Me.1990).
Eileen argues that the jury ignored the testimony of her economic consultant, Robert Doucette. Doucette testified that the present value of the stream of future income lost by Eileen as a result of her husband's death was approximately $300,000. He also stated, however, "If Mr. Hoitt would not have lived anyway, then there would have been no pension to be lost. And if Mrs. Hoitt had not lived to a certain age, then she would have lost nothing, even though her husband lived."
The jury -was not obligated to accept Doucette's calculations, even if uncontrovert-ed. See Stubbs, 478 A.2d at 692. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the jury's determination could not be deemed "irrational." Nor was there any indication of a jury compromise between liability and damages.
Apportionment of Fault
Eileen argues that the jury should have been allowed to apportion fault among the State, Thurlow, and John. She asks us to decide the issue left undecided in Minott v. F.W. Cunningham & Sons, 413 A.2d 1325, 1328 n. 3 (Me.1980): whether, in a case with two or more parties responsible for the plaintiffs injury, the comparison of negligence required by 14 M.R.S.A. § 156 (1980) is between the plaintiff and each responsible party or the plaintiff and all responsible parties.
We need not reach this issue because the jury found John's negligence to be less than that of the State, a finding that entitled Eileen to recover. Adding Thur-low's negligence to the equation would not change the result. The statute then requires a jury to reduce the damages "to such extent as the jury thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant's share in the responsibility for the damage." 14 M.R.S.A. § 156. The jury must first "find and record the total damages which would have been recoverable if the claimant had not been at fault." Id. The jury then reduces the total "by dollars and cents, and not by percentage " to account for the claimant's share of responsibility for the total damages. Id. (emphasis added). The jury in this case determined Eileen's total damages to be $90,000. The jury reduced this amount by $40,000 to account for what it determined to be Eileen's share in the responsibility for the damages. A jury may consider the comparative percentage of fault as one factor in its determination of the just and equitable reduction to reflect the claimant's share of responsibility. See Jackson v. Frederick's Motor Inn, 418 A.2d 168, 174 (Me.1980) ("The relative fault of the parties as determined in connection with the liability issue is, of course, a relevant factor which may be considered by the jury in its apportionment of the damages. But it is not conclusive.") Eileen voluntarily dismissed Thurlow. The court correctly refused to instruct the jury to consider Thurlow's negligence when it reduced Eileen's damages to the extent it thought just and equitable.
Eileen further argues the opportunity lost by Hall's negligence was that of suing both Thurlow and the State in one action. One may only speculate what action Eileen would have brought had Hall not failed to pursue the claim against the State. In reality, she did sue Thurlow and Hall. The case-within-a-case format allowed her to present her action as she would have absent Hall's negligence. Specifically, she had the opportunity to present to the jury her case against the State and Thurlow. Rather than proceeding in this manner, she settled with Thurlow and released him with prejudice. At that point, it was no longer Hall's negligence but Eileen's own tactical decision that deprived her of the opportunity to present Thurlow's negligence to the jury. The court correctly determined that there was no claim pending against Thurlow that would allow the jury to consider the question of his negligence.
Reduction of Damages
Eileen contends that because the jury did not consider Thuriow's fault, the award of damages should not have been reduced by the amount of her settlement with Thurlow. Eileen assumes the trial court applied 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980), which it explicitly, and correctly, did not apply. Section 163 mandates reduction of damages awarded against a nonsettling defendant by the settlement amount reached with a settling defendant when recovery is sought for the same injury. See Hewitt v. Bakmueller, 584 A.2d 664, 666-67 (Me.1991) (noting that the only time such reduction is not required is when the settlement is reached with a party later determined by a verdict to be without causative fault). Eileen sought recovery from Thurlow for physical injuries stemming from the accident, and from Hall for economic injury stemming from his professional negligence. The trial court correctly reasoned that because the settling defendant (Thurlow) and the nonsettling defendant (Hall) were sued for independent torts, the settlement could not offset the award of damages pursuant to section 163. See Alexander v. Callanen, 104 Misc.2d 762, 429 N.Y.S.2d 141, 142 (N.Y.App.Div.1979) (explaining that lawyers potentially liable for professional negligence have no right of contribution against doctors for underlying medical malpractice action).
The trial court looked instead to the purpose of damages in legal malpractice actions. The measure of damages is the amount the client would have recovered but for the attorney's negligence. See Moores v. Greenberg, 834 F.2d 1105, 1110-13 (1st Cir.1987). The jury determined thai, Eileen's losses due to her husband's death amounted to $50,000. Eileen received. $50,000 from Thurlow for the same injuries as those re-suiting from the State's negligence. The trial court properly reduced the award to account for the settlement. See O'Neil v. Vasseur, 118 Idaho 257, 796 P.2d 134, 139-40 (Ct.App.1990) (no compensable damages available against attorneys when client successfully pursued case pro se); Kay v. Bricker, 485 So.2d 486, 487 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1986) (in attorney malpractice case, "[p]laintiff could not recover from the defendant an amount which would exceed the amount of his proven damages.").
Collateral Source
Hall asked Eileen during cross-examination about her survivor's benefit from John's Air Force pension. She contends this violated the collateral source rule and depressed the jury's award of damages. The collateral source rule holds that a plaintiff who has received compensation for her damages from sources independent of the tortfea-sor remains entitled to a full recovery. See Potvin v. Seven Elms, Inc., 628 A.2d 115, 116 (Me.1993).
Contrary to Hall's characterization of the benefit as a "continuation of a portion of the pension income otherwise payable to [John Hoitt]," rather than a "replacement of a portion of the pension income lost as a result of Mr. Hoitt's death," we consider it a collateral source. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 920A cmt. b (1979), which provides:
Payments made or benefits conferred by other sources [sources other than the defendant] are known as collateral-source benefits.... If the plaintiff was himself responsible for the benefit, as by maintaining his own insurance or by making advantageous employment arrangements, the law allows him to keep it for himself. If the benefit was a gift to the plaintiff from a third party or established for him by law, he should not be deprived of the advantage that it confers. The law does not differentiate between the nature of the benefits, so long as they did not come from the defendant or a person acting for him. One way of stating this conclusion is to say that it is the tortfeasor's responsibility to compensate for all harm that he causes, not confined to the net loss that the injured party receives.
But for John's action in securing this benefit for Eileen, she would not have received it. John made an advantageous employ-meni/pension arrangement for the benefit of his wife to compensate her to some extent in the event of his death. The benefit was a collateral source.
The error is harmless, however. The exchange to which Eileen objected consisted of one question on cross-examination. On redirect Eileen chose to ask the witness more specific questions about the arrangement and the amount Eileen received. Hall's question to Eileen's witness cannot be said to have created the same likelihood of prejudicial impact that counsel's behavior did in Werner v. Lane, 393 A.2d 1329, 1332-38 (Me.1978) (requiring a new trial when, inter alia, references were made to the fact that plaintiff was receiving state-subsidized medical care). Any prejudicial impact after Hall's one question was Eileen's handiwork.
Costs
The trial court ruled that because Eileen recovered nothing in her lawsuit against Hall, it could not consider her a prevailing party and, thus, declined to award her costs. The analysis that determines whether one is a "winner" and, therefore, a prevailing party includes a consideration whether the plaintiff has gained anything through litigation that she could not have gained without it. In Dodge v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 417 A.2d 969, 975 (Me.1980), we advocated a "functional analysis" of the question whether one is a prevailing party, that is, whether one won or lost. In Perez v. Baker Packers, 694 S.W.2d 138, 143 (Tex.Ct.App.1985) (interpreting Rule 131 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure), a Texas appeals court described a "successful party" as "one who obtains a judgment of a competent court vindicating a civil claim of right." In Perez, the plaintiff had recovered a judgment on his negligence claim but could not collect on the judgment because he had settled with another defendant for an amount greater than the damages awarded. The court stated, "We believe that the determination of a successful party under rule 131 is to be based upon success upon the merits, not upon damages." Id. The jury in the instant case determined that Eileen would have obtained a judgment against the State but for Hall's negligence. That she cannot recover from Hall on the judgment because she has been compensated through a settlement may be Hall's good fortune but should not negate what Eileen has obtained — a determination that Hall's negligence resulted in harm or injury to Eileen, that injury being the loss of a viable cause of action. Eileen is entitled to her costs.
Remaining Issues
Eileen challenges the admission of several photographs. We find no abuse of discretion in their admission. State v. Robinson, 628 A.2d 664, 666 (Me.1993). We will not consider those arguments relating to the emotional distress claim she chose not to present. Our finding that Eileen was the successful party disposes of Hall's request on his cross-appeal. Finally, we find no reversible eiTor in the instructions pertaining to the calculation of the present value of future income. While the instructions could have been more precise, Eileen agreed in chambers to the deletion of a portion that may have alleviated the potential for confusion she now cites as problematic. Furthermore, the decision whether to amplify a portion of the instructions is left to the discretion of the trial judge. See Towle v. Aube, 310 A.2d 259, 266 (Me.1973).
The entry is:
Judgment affirmed in part and vacated in part. Remanded to the Superior Court with instructions to award costs to plaintiff Eileen Hoitt.
WATHEN, C.J., and ROBERTS, CLIFFORD and DANA, JJ., concurring.
. 14 M.R.S.A. § 8107 (1980 & Supp.1994).
. 14 M.R.S.A. § 163 (1980) provides:
Whenever a person seeks recovery for a personal injury or property damage caused by 2 or more persons, the settlement with or release of one or more of the persons causing the injury shall not be a bar to a subsequent action against the other person or persons also causing the injury.
Evidence of settlement with a release of one or more persons causing the injury shall not be admissible at a subsequent trial against the other person or persons also causing the injury. After the jury has returned its verdict, the trial judge shall inquire of the attorneys for the parties whether such a settlement or release has occurred. If such settlement or release has occurred, the trial judge shall reduce the verdict by an amount equal to the settlement with or the consideration for the release of the other persons.