Opinion ID: 2088562
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the effect of the joint tortfeasor release

Text: Stephen asserts in support of his appeal that the trial justice erred in failing to give effect to the full thrust of the joint tortfeasor release given by Wendy to Donald J. Leffort. He asserts that the trial justice should have reduced Wendy's judgment by the pro rata share attributed to Donald J. Leffort by the jury. The special interrogatories submitted to the jurors were answered by a finding that Leffort was 75 percent responsible for the accident and Stephen was 25 percent responsible. Thus, Stephen asserts that the trial justice was correct in the first instance when he reduced the judgment by 75 percent and incorrect when he later reduced the judgment only by $10,000, which represented the actual consideration paid. With this contention we agree. There is no doubt that the joint-tortfeasor release specifically purported to release and discharge Stephen from [a]ny and all actions, causes of action, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of the pro rata share caused by or attributable to the said Donald J. Leffort    because of the injuries sustained by me in connection with the aforesaid incident of July 25, 1976. (Emphasis added.) The release went on to say that it [wa]s given under and in compliance with the provisions of Rhode Island General Laws, 1956, Sections 10-6-1 to 10-6-11 inclusive and all amendments thereof and additions thereto. The pertinent portion of the statute to which reference is made is found in G.L. 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 10-6-7. This section reads as follows: A release by the injured person of one (1) joint tortfeasor, whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tortfeasors unless the release so provides; but reduces the claim against the other tortfeasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release, or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, if greater than the consideration paid.  (Emphasis added.) We have previously construed this statute in Augustine v. Langlais, 121 R.I. 802, 804, 402 A.2d 1187, 1188 (1979), and determined that it was free from ambiguity and that the words stated therein should be given their plain and obvious meaning. In that case we decided an issue that is precisely the converse of the issue in the case at bar. There, the actual amount paid for the release was greater than the pro rata share of the joint tortfeasor with whom the settlement was effectuated. We stated clearly and unequivocally that [t]he statute clearly directs that the damage award must be reduced by either the amount of consideration paid for the release, or the proportion of reduction provided by the release, whichever is greater.  Augustine, 121 R.I. at 805, 402 A.2d at 1189. (Emphasis in original.) In reaching this conclusion, we cited Daugherty v. Hershberger, 386 Pa. 367, 373, 126 A.2d 730, 733 (1956). In that case, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania stated the proposition applied in Augustine, supra, and the converse of that proposition. This statement is equally unequivocal. In other words, if the proportion of reduction provided by the release is greater than the amount of the consideration paid for the release, such proportion of reduction prevails, but if, on the other hand, the consideration paid for the release is greater than the proportion of reduction provided by the release, then the amount of the consideration paid for the release prevails. Daugherty, 386 Pa. at 373, 126 A.2d at 733. In the case at bar no one disputes that the release provided that Stephen should be discharged by the pro rata share caused by or attributable to Donald J. Leffort. It is further beyond question that the pro rata share in this instance was dramatically greater than the actual consideration paid. Indeed, taking into account the interest computed to the date of judgment in the Superior Court, the pro rata reduction would have exceeded $300,000, whereas the amount of the consideration was merely $10,000. Under the mandate of the statute as well as the terms of the release, it was the duty of the trial justice to give to Stephen the benefit of the pro-rata-share reduction. Consequently, he was correct in reducing the original judgment from $240,000 to $62,500 (principal sum only) but erred when he later modified the principal amount of this judgment to $240,000, thereby giving credit to Stephen only for the amount of consideration paid. This latter determination violated the command of the statute when read in conjunction with the terms of the release. Wendy argues that the result should be different in this case by reason of the fact that Stephen had not filed a cross-claim in the case at bar. In support of this assertion, Wendy cites Markham v. Cross Transportation, Inc., 119 R.I. 213, 376 A.2d 1359 (1977). This case does not support Wendy's assertion. The only holding of Markham relating to the absence of a cross-claim was the lack of standing on the part of the defendants who had not filed a cross-claim to move for a new trial in respect to codefendants who were found by the jury to be not liable. That holding has no application to the case at bar. Certainly, Stephen has ample standing to raise a question concerning the amount of the judgment that he should pay to Wendy. The absence of a cross-claim in this case is immaterial since Stephen is not attempting to assert any claim against Leffort but only to obtain the benefit of the release secured by Leffort for Stephen's own benefit. Obviously, Wendy's release to Leffort cuts off any right that Stephen would have against Leffort unless he paid to Wendy a greater proportion of the judgment than the 25 percent that the jury found Stephen was required to pay by reason of his proportionate fault in accordance with § 10-6-3. In place of this right of contribution, Stephen is given by the statutory framework and Wendy's voluntary act a release in the amount of the pro rata share that Leffort would otherwise be required to pay. Consequently, Stephen lacks no standing to assert the issue raised by him in this case as a result of his failure to file a cross-claim against Leffort.