Opinion ID: 1742496
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 4. We do not discuss the jurisdictional issue presented on this appeal since this issue has been previously addressed by order of this Court denying the Appellee's Motion to Dismiss.
¶ 5. Turner asserts that the $850,000 he received in damages does not constitute all of the damages to which he is entitled. He claims that when this Court ordered the remittitur, we never stated that an amount over $850,000 would be excessive. Thus, he argues that he should now be able to sue Pickens and if a new jury finds his damages to be over $850,000, then Pickens should be liable for the difference. ¶ 6. Turner is correct that this Court did not state that $850,000 was the maximum amount that could be awarded in damages in this case. Wells Fargo Armored Serv. Corp. v. Turner, 543 So.2d 154 (Miss. 1989). What this Court did was give Turner a choice: he could have a new trial to determine damages against Wells Fargo and to determine both liability and damages of Pickens; or he could accept the remittitur. Any time this Court finds that damages are excessive and enters a remittitur, the plaintiff always has the option of accepting the remittitur or having the case remanded for a new trial on damages. Odom v. Roberts, 606 So.2d 114, 120 (Miss. 1992). In the case sub judice, Turner accepted the remittitur. When he did so he received full satisfaction of his claim. ¶ 7. We have previously held that a plaintiff is only entitled to one satisfaction. Medley v. Webb, 288 So.2d 846, 848 (Miss. 1974). He cannot recover the full amount due to him and still sue another joint tortfeasor because he thinks the damages awarded to him were inadequate. Medley, 288 So.2d at 848. Turner argues that the reasoning in Medley does not apply to the present case because in Medley the plaintiff received the full amount of damages awarded by the jury, and in the case sub judice, the plaintiff did not receive the full amount awarded by the jury, receiving the amount of the remittitur instead. Turner's reasoning is misguided. He fails to realize that when he accepted the remittitur he received full satisfaction of his claim and he cannot now pursue Pickens for more damages. The rule of law concerning the effect of accepting a remitted judgment is concisely stated in 74 Am.Jur.2d Torts § 85, which states: A partial payment of a judgment against one joint tortfeasor is not a satisfaction which will prevent the maintenance of an action against another. But where the injured party accepts the amount of a judgment as reduced by remittitur, such payment amounts to a full satisfaction and operates to discharge the other tortfeasors otherwise jointly liable. 74 Am.Jur.2d Torts § 85 (1974)(emphasis added). ¶ 8. We hereby adopt this rule. Accordingly, we hold that Turner extinguished the liability of all of the joint tortfeasors when he accepted the remittitur. Therefore, Pickens cannot be found liable, and Turner's cause of action against Pickens should be dismissed.