Opinion ID: 458191
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Algoma's Challenge to Court's Dismissal of C & O

Text: 10 The Michigan contribution statute, which is controlling, states in pertinent part: 11 (1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, when 2 or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to a person or property or for the same wrongful death, there is a right of contribution among them even though judgment has not been recovered against all or any of them. 12 M.C.L. Sec. 600.2925a(1); M.S.A. Sec. 27A.2925(a)(1) (emphasis added). 13 The trial court held that C & O was not responsible for contribution to Algoma because it did not fall in the statutorily-required class of persons who were 'jointly or severally liable in tort.' The court ruled that the court's previous dismissal with prejudice of the Burpo claim against C & O represented a full adjudication of no tort liability. Thus, according to the trial court, Algoma could not claim contribution because of C & O's conclusive affirmative defense of no original tort liability to the plaintiff. 14 We have held that a dismissal with prejudice represents a full adjudication of party liability. 3 In Smoot v. Fox, 340 F.2d 301, 303 (6th Cir. 1965), this court stated: 15 Dismissal of an action with prejudice is a complete adjudication of the issues presented by the pleadings and is a bar to a further action between the parties. An adjudication in favor of the defendants, by court or jury, can rise no higher than this. 16 (Emphasis added). See also Cream Top Creamery v. Dean Milk Co., 383 F.2d 358, 362 (6th Cir. 1967). 17 It is true that Smoot characterizes a dismissal with prejudice as a bar to further action 'between the parties' only. 340 F.2d at 303. Yet Smoot also unequivocally states that dismissal with prejudice is a 'complete adjudication of the issues presented.' Id. We thus believe that a proper dismissal of C & O with prejudice has the effect of precluding Algoma from establishing C & O's necessary predicate liability as a joint tortfeasor for contribution. 18 Algoma unfortunately failed to challenge this dismissal of C & O by Burpo in a timely fashion. 4 We decline to reverse on appeal this dismissal as improperly granted, and hold that its effect insulates C & O from Algoma's contribution claim. 19