Opinion ID: 1658335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: the lower court erred in overruling appellant's motion in limine for an order prohibiting the appellee from introducing the fact and amounts of settlement by the appellant with the two cotortfeasors.

Text: Prior to trial, attorneys for appellant filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit appellee from introducing in evidence or referring to the fact that Larry Massey and Robert Dugger, two codefendants, had settled claims against them by paying the sum of fifty thousand five hundred dollars ($50,500) to the appellant; that, in the alternative, the court apply the amount previously paid, on any verdict returned by the jury, and reduce the verdict by such amount. Toward the end of appellee's case, it attempted to introduce a stipulation that Massey and Dugger had settled out of court with the appellant, but the stipulation was never entered because the appellant declined to do so. Thereupon, appellee called appellant as an adverse witness and showed by her that settlement had been made with Massey and Dugger. During the examination, the following questions and answers were asked and given: Q. Did you settle your claims against Larry Massey and Robert Dugger? Yes or no. A. I settled the claim with Larry Massey, he was insured and I settled with him for an amount that he was insured for, Forty-eight Thousand Dollars. And, Robert Dugger had no insurance and he offered me . .. BY MR. COMPTON: (Interposing) Your Honor, this is not responsive ... A... . Two Thousand Five Hundred Dollars, and I settled with him. BY THE COURT: Anything else? BY MR. COMPTON: That's all, Your Honor. The record reflects that the attorney for appellee was asking only the question as to whether or not a settlement had been effected with the two co-defendants. The answer telling the amount of the settlement was not responsive to the question asked and was volunteered by the appellant. However, we do not think that the procedure followed by the lower court constituted reversible error. Attorneys representing plaintiffs and multiple defendants have faced this question for many years and experienced attorneys have had no trouble solving the question. Two different procedures have been used in most jurisdictions of the state. [3] The first procedure is similar to the one used by the lower court here. The defendant may show, either by the plaintiff or proper witnesses, that a settlement has been made with one or more of the defendants and the amount of that settlement. The jury is then instructed that if it returns a verdict for the plaintiff, the amount returned would be reduced by the amount of the settlement made with the plaintiff. In Bogdahn v. Pascagoula Street Railway and Power Co., 118 Miss. 668, 79 So. 844 (1918) and Wood v. Walley, 352 So.2d 1083 (Miss. 1977), a question and procedure similar to the case sub judice, although not on the precise point, was discussed. The second procedure followed in other jurisdictions is for the parties, outside the presence of the jury, to stipulate that a settlement has been made, or is being made by one or more of the defendants, and the amount of the settlement. The jury would not be informed of the settlement or the payment, and, if a verdict were returned for the plaintiff, the trial judge would reduce the amount of the award by the amount of the settlement. In Jackson v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 727 F.2d 506 (5th Cir.1984), the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals had the following to say about the problem: The purpose of the Mississippi rule is to prevent double recovery. Daves v. Reed, 222 So.2d 411, 416 (Miss. 1969). The district court accomplished this purpose by deducting the amount of the settlements from the jury's award. The jury could have been misled and confused by settlement amounts for atypical minor claims. If the court had let in the amounts of the settlements, it would have been fairly obliged to explain to the jury the nature of the claims, how they compared with the claims here, and other factors too complicated to make such a comparison practicable. The disclosure of the fact of the settlements without amounts prejudiced no one, since the jury may have speculated whether settlement amounts were high or low. 727 F.2d at 531-532. Apparently, most plaintiffs would prefer the second mentioned procedure. On the other hand, we fail to see where the procedure used in the case sub judice would prejudice or harm a defendant. Jurors are not unreasonable and they are smarter than many people think. They might suspect that a settlement had been made as to other defendants and might feel that plaintiff had been fully compensated, which would react to the plaintiff's detriment. While we do not think that either course should constitute reversible error, we incline to the second procedure as being the more logical and as resulting in a fairer disposition of the case, all facts and circumstances being considered. There being no reversible error in the trial below, the judgment is affirmed. AFFIRMED. WALKER, C.J., HAWKINS, P.J., DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur. GRIFFIN, J., not participating.