Opinion ID: 1372053
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial court's denial of plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment on special verdict

Text: The parties stipulated if witnesses were called to testify they would testify that plaintiff incurred expenses of $1,493,947.27 and that these expenses were reasonable (later in the trial, as shown in note 3, ante, defendant agreed that $470,000.00 of this figure was reasonable and necessary). Plaintiff also presented evidence of an additional $84,417.50, bringing the total damages before the Court of $1,578,364.99. The jury was instructed that other original defendants had settled before trial and paid to the plaintiff $825,000.00. It was then instructed to calculate all of the damages caused by defendant's defective product, and that the Court would make the deduction to offset the award already received in settlement. The jury returned to the Court special verdict no. 10 filled out as follows (the figure of $825,000.00 having been typed in on this verdict with approval of the parties prior to submission to the jury): What sum would fairly compensate the plaintiff for the damages, if any, sustained as a result of the acts of Armco Steel Company? A. Damages for Tenant Claims $235,000.00 B. Damages for Lost Income to Plaintiff $ 75,836.00 C. Other Damages $547,104.00 ___________ TOTAL DAMAGES $857,940.00 Less Amounts Received in Settlement $825,000.00 ___________ NET DAMAGES $ ----------- The jury, as it was instructed, made a specific finding regarding the total damages that the plaintiff sustained as a result of the acts (defective products) of the defendant. Plaintiff contends on appeal that because the jury did not actually make the calculation deducting the $825,000.00 received in settlement from the $857,940.00 total damages, that they did not intend the deduction to be made. There appears to be some minor confusion in the instructions relating to damages on whether the total damages sustained by plaintiff should be ascertained by the jury or whether the damages sustained as a result of the acts (defective products) of defendant should be determined. And certainly, on its face, the information revealed to the jury of the amount of prior settlement of $825,000.00 would seem to intensify this problem (though the jury was instructed that that settlement should be of no concern to it). But, this seeming confusion did not affect the jury. Why? Because the jury assessed damages for $857,940.00  with mathematical precision  on the basis of apportionment of damages which related to the acts of defendant only, as it was encouraged to do by defense counsel in its summation, and as it was instructed to do in the special verdict. Specifically, this counsel, in summation, substantially urged, repeatedly, that if the jury found defendant liable, it should assess damages for only one-half of the damages sustained, which it did with the exception of damages shown on invoice no. 6519-C, which related to one item, the rewelding of the joists heretofore mentioned, and originally welded by defendant solely, in the sum of $137,516.95. The apportionment can be strikingly illustrated: Total damages $1,578,364.99 Less invoice no. 6519-C - 137,516.95 _____________ $1,440,848.04 Divided in half $ 720,424.02 Add invoice no. 6519-C + 137,516.95 _____________ $ 857,940.97 The jury rounded of the finding against defendant to $857,940.00. The Court, after receiving the verdict, denied plaintiff's motion for entry of judgment against defendant for $857,940.00 without settlement already received of $825,000.00 but entered judgment for $32,940.00  the difference between these two amounts. The Court then later entered judgment against plaintiff, no cause of action. We are mindful that this type of case may not classically lend itself to apportionment of harm among tortfeasors. But, significantly, the ascertainment of damages for harm caused by the defendant, not the total damages caused to plaintiff by all parties, dominated the rhythm and contours of this case overwhelmingly, though plaintiff's counsel, in summation, cautioned the jury against allocation of damages ... because if you do we (the plaintiff) are going to have a double deduction...; i.e., if damages attributable only to defendant are assessed and then the Court deducts the settlement already paid by others, the plaintiff would indeed suffer a double deduction. Hence, the law of the case to apportion was established by the damage instructions  with minor, but not fatal, tension existing among them  and the persistent urgence by defense counsel in summation. Coupling these matters with a demonstrated and irrefutable fact of apportionment by the jury and the substantiality of the evidence on damages, against which no serious argument can be made, we conclude that the verdict for $857,940.00 must be essentially upheld without diminution of settlement from it in this unique case. We say essentially as one adjustment must be made, which is necessary as the verdict amount of $857,940.00 added to the settlement sum for $825,000.00 equals $1,682,000.00, which exceeds the total damages claimed by plaintiff. Hence, plaintiff can recover only the difference between the total damages of $1,578,364.99 less the settlement of $825,000.00. Since Justice Cardozo commented that The assault upon the citadel of privity is proceeding in these days apace, [10] two-thirds of the American jurisdictions have adopted the doctrine of strict liability in tort. [11] We now, by this opinion, fully and clearly join this large majority of jurisdictions in espousal of this doctrine. Reversed and remanded with instruction to the District Court to enter judgment for plaintiff and against the defendant for $753,364.99, together with interest. Costs to plaintiff. MAUGHAN, J., and ELLETT, Retired Justice, [] concur. CROCKETT, C.J., concurs in the result. STEWART, J., does not participate herein.