Opinion ID: 320699
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Joint Tortfeasor Release

Text: 50 The Government maintains that the district court erred in refusing to reduce the plaintiffs' recovery by 50 percent in accordance with the joint tortfeasor release executed by the Griffins in favor of Pfizer. 28 Noting that the release expressly provides that 51 should it appear that two or more persons or entities are jointly or severally liable in tort for the alleged injuries to wife-plaintiff, the considerations for this Release shall be received in reduction of the total damages recoverable against all the other tortfeasors to the extent of the pro-rata share of the said Pfizer Inc., 52 the Government contends that under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, 29 enacted in Pennsylvania July 19, 1951, 12 P.S. 2082-2089, any judgment obtained by the Griffins against the United States must be reduced by the pro rata share of Pfizer, or 50 percent. 30 The district court, relying on Pennsylvania case law, 31 held that because the Government never joined Pfizer as a third party defendant to determine Pfizer's joint tortfeasor status, the Griffin-Pfizer agreement was legally ineffective to reduce the judgment. 53 As the district court points out, Pennsylvania has established the rule that in order to give effect to a 'pro rata share' clause in a release, the joint tortfeasor status of the settling party must be judicially determined. 32 Pennsylvania has apparently adopted this position to avoid allowing a defendant who may be the sole tortfeasor to obtain the benefit of the release. Eckels v. Klieger, 205 Pa.Super. 526, 210 A.2d 899 (1965). Thus, absent a determination of joint tortfeasor status, the benefit of the settlement inures to the plaintiff. This court has applied the Pennsylvania rule in Mazer v. Lipshutz, 360 F.2d 275 (3d Cir. 1966), where in a medical malpractice action against a surgeon we reverse the district court's reduction of plaintiff's verdict by the amount paid to the plaintiff by a shospital for its release. 54 The release executed in the instant case, however, differs from the releases in Davis, supra note 31, and Mazer in one crucial respect. The Griffin-Pfizer agreement provides: 55 In order to avoid inconvenience and expense to the released party, Pfizer Inc., in any action in which the said Pfizer Inc. is or may be a defendant or third party defendant together with other alleged tortfeasors, it is further agreed by us that any verdict rendered against the other alleged tortfeasors shall be reduced by the pro-rata share of the party released herein, Pfizer Inc., and any judgment entered on said verdict shall be in the amount of the verdict reduced by the pro-rata share of the party released herein, whether or not the released party herein was in fact a joint tortfeasor. This provision is intended to obviate the necessity and expense of having the released party herein remain a party on the record and obliged to participate at its expense in a trial merely for the purpose of determining if in fact it was a tortfeasor so as to entitle the other tortfeasors to a pro-rata reduction of any verdict. However, this provision in no way constitutes an admission of liability by the party released herein, Pfizer, Inc. 56 This language constitutes an express waiver by plaintiffs of the benefits of the Davis holding. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated: 57 To constitute a waiver of a legal right, there must be a clear, unequivocal and decisive act of the party with knowledge of such right and an evident purpose to surrender it. Kahn v. Banc America-Blair Corp., 327 Pa. 209, 193 A. 905 (1937); Cole v. Philadelphia Co., 345 Pa. 315, 26 A.2d 920 (1942). 58 Brown v. City of Pittsburgh, 409 Pa. 357, 186 A.2d 399, 401 (1962). That court has also stated: 59 While ordinarily the question of waiver is a question of fact for a jury . . . yet, where the only evidence as to waiver is a writing, its construction and interpretation and whether or not it constitutes a waiver is a question of law for the court. 60 Hanover Construction Co. v. Fehr, 392 Pa. 199, 139 A.2d 656 (1958). The above-cited clause of the Pfizer-Griffin agreement is unambiguous. The Griffins have conceded the joint tortfeasor status of Pfizer for the purpose of determining damages in the case of a judgment tortfeasor. It is obvious that the release was drafted with Davis specifically in mind. Having waiver their right to insist upon a judicial determination of Pfizer's joint tortfeasor status, the Griffins may not object to a reduction of their judgment agains the United States to the extent of Pfizer's pro rata share. 61 The district court refused to give effect to the foregoing language in the release because it believed it inoperative until Pfizer was actually made a party to the Griffin v. United States action. The language of the provision on this point is ambiguous. 33 It is unclear whether this language contemplates that Pfizer be in fact made a defendant of record. Even if we construe the language as contemplating a requirement of Pfizer's joinder, however, had the United States attempted to join Pfizer, the latter, under the terms of the release, could have obtained a dismissal. We see no reason to deny to the United States the benefits of the release because of its failure to make a pro forma motion for joinder. 34 62 The case will be remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. 63 Lot 56 Reference  ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Number of Monkeys with Lesions 4 2.4 Severity  Grade 4 2 0 Grade 3 1 .1 Grade 1,2 1 2 Spread  Grade 4 0 0 Grade 3 3 .1 Grade 1,2 1 2 Paralyzed monkey 1 0 64  The reference strain in fact consisted of 305 monkeys. In the chart all 65 referencce strain test results have been divided by 10 to allow comparison 66 with the 30-monkey test lot results. 67  For the significance of grade scores see note 13 supra. 68 On their face, the results of the Lot 56 test showed that Lot 56 69 neurovirrulence exceeded that of the reference strain. The Government argues 70 that DBS regarded the criterion of number of monkeys with lesions as the most 71 significcant evidence of neurovirulence, and that under this test, the overall 72 Lot 56 test results were not adverse. However, our examination of the chart 73 shows that the results of the test lot exceeded those of the reference strain 74 with respect to all criteria. 75 See also note 23, infra. 76