Opinion ID: 1969281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: mcl 600.6304; msa 27a.6304

Text: The version of § 6304 before us in the present case still contains much of the language originally found in the UCFA. It also includes many of the modifications found in HB 5154. However, the statute as adopted incorporates several policy decisions that distinguish it from its predecessors. At the time of adoption, § 6304 provided: (1) In a personal injury action involving fault of more than 1 party to the action, including third-party defendants, the court, unless otherwise agreed by all parties to the action, shall instruct the jury to answer special interrogatories or, if there is no jury, shall make findings indicating both of the following: (a) The total amount of each plaintiff's damages. (b) The percentage of the total fault of all of the parties regarding each claim as to each plaintiff, defendant, and third-party defendant. (2) In determining the percentages of fault under subsection (1)(b), the trier of fact shall consider both the nature of the conduct of each party at fault and the extent of the causal relation between the conduct and the damages claimed.    (6) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection and subsection (7), upon motion made not later than 6 months after a final judgment is entered, the court shall determine whether all or part of a party's share of the obligation is uncollectible from that party, and shall reallocate any uncollectible amount among the other parties according to their respective percentages of fault as determined under subsection (1). A party shall not be required to pay a percentage of any uncollectible amount which exceeds that party's percentage of fault as determined under subsection (1). The party whose liability is reallocated shall continue to be subject to contribution and to any continuing liability to the plaintiff on the judgment. (7) Notwithstanding subsection (3), a governmental agency, other than a governmental hospital or medical care facility, shall not be required to pay a percentage of any uncollectible amount which exceeds the governmental agency's percentage of fault as determined under subsection (1). Subsections (1) and (2) of § 6304 are almost identical to the UCFA and HB 5154, with one very important omission: they do not include a reference to released parties. Whereas UCFA § 2(a)(2) referred to the total fault of all of the parties to each claim that is allocated to each claimant, defendant, third-party defendant, and person who has been released from liability under Section 6  and HB 5154 § 6304(1)(b) referred to the total fault of all of the parties regarding each claim as to each claimant, defendant, and third-party defendant and person who has been released from liability pursuant to Section 2925d,  § 6304 as enacted only refers to the total fault of all of the parties regarding each claim as to each plaintiff, defendant, and third-party defendant. (Emphasis added.) While this omission implies that the Legislature did not intend the fault of settling tortfeasors to be considered, the MDOT argues that there are other subsections of § 6304 that suggest the opposite intent. These arguments will be addressed as they appear in the statute. Subsection (3) has no counterpart in either the UCFA or HB 5154. It provides: If it is determined under subsections (1) and (2) that a plaintiff is not at fault, subsections (5) and (6) shall not apply. This subsection represents an apparent policy choice on the part of the Legislature to protect plaintiffs who are wholly without fault. Under the pure form of comparative fault contemplated by HB 5154, even an entirely innocent plaintiff, a plaintiff who was in no way negligent, had to bear the risk of nonrecovery. This was in stark contrast to the UCFA, in which joint and several liability imposed that risk on defendants. As adopted, subsection (3) of § 6304 [18] protects the innocent plaintiff through the use of joint and several liability, at least with regard to nongovernmental defendants. Subsection (3) is important for another reason. It confirms that § 2925d still means what Mayhew said it meant, the total share of damage liability of non-settling tortfeasors should be the entire amount of damages minus the value of the settlement.... Id. at 407. Because subsection (3) contemplates joint and several liability, the traditional § 2925d setoff is operative. While it could still be argued that § 2925d has been impliedly changed by the tort reform legislation to contemplate proportional fault, the complete lack of any language countering this Court's rejection of this argument in the joint and several setting, makes the argument that § 2925 has been changed by implication unpersuasive. Subsection (5) is the foundation for the government's argument that the fault of settling parties is to be considered by the factfinder. The court shall determine the award of damages to each plaintiff in accordance with the findings under subsection (1), subject to any reduction under sections 2925d and 6303, and enter judgment against each party, including a third-party defendant, except that judgment shall not be entered against a person who has been released from liability pursuant to section 2925d. Except as otherwise provided in subsection (6), a person shall not be required to pay damages in an amount greater than his or her percentage of fault. The section is identical in language to subsection (3) in HB 5154 in all but one respect. [19] It applies only when the plaintiff is at fault, and contains some language that seems to imply that more than just nonsettling tortfeasors are considered by the factfinder. The MDOT contends that the phrase except that judgment shall not be entered against a person who has been released from liability pursuant to section 2925d, indicates a legislative intent that the factfinder is to consider released parties in the calculation of fault. The context in which § 6304 was adopted must be remembered. Mayhew was the governing law, and its interpretation of comparative fault precluded factfinder consideration of the fault of settling tortfeasors. Our decision was based on both § 2925d, which was not, and has not, been amended, and the public policies of (1) encouraging settlements and (2) assuring that a plaintiff is fully compensated for injuries sustained. Id. at 411-412. The language of HB 5154 explicitly allowed the factfinder to consider the fault of released parties and would have undone that portion of Mayhew that did not allow for such consideration. However, § 6304 as adopted, does not. In light of the case law and legislative history, it is too great a stretch to conclude that the ambiguous language in subsection (5) was intended to accomplish all that the specific, but eliminated, language found in the House bill would have accomplished. [20] As a whole, § 6304 as enacted appears to be an attempt to take a less drastic approach to tort reform than was proposed in HB 5154. [21] When a plaintiff is not at fault, the risk of nonrecovery falls on the defendant, and the plaintiff recovers under joint and several liability. When the plaintiff is at fault, the fault of the nonsettling defendants is apportioned among all the parties to the action, who pay according to that fault. This interpretation is consistent with this Court's interpretation in Mayhew of § 2925d. The total judgment is reduced only by the settlement amount and the problem of double setoff seemingly suggested in HB 5154 is avoided. [22]