Court Opinion

ID: 9720495
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:33:00.015001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:18.753509
License: Public Domain

MORGAN, Justice
(dissenting).
I dissent.
My disagreement is not with the basic law involved but rather with the application to the facts of the instant case. While the author abhors unjust enrichment of the plaintiff, by his application of the PCHA settlement to the appellant’s portion of the verdict, he has given the appellant or its liability carrier a windfall in excess of $14,-000.
In my view, the Uniform Contribution Among Tort-Feasors law, SDCL 15-8-11 to 15-8-22 inclusive, is primarily for the adjustment of liabilities between the joint tort-feasors.* Secondarily, it provides a vehicle for settlement in advance of suit between some but not all of the joint tort-fea-sors and the claimant, as opposed to the old covenant not to sue gimmick.
The cases cited in the opinion in favor of the pro tanto application of PCHA’s contribution are alright as far as they go; however, none of them are on all fours with this case because none of them involve the element of additional tort-feasors who have likewise settled. We can uphold the theory of the pro tanto offset without- unjustly enriching appellant by applying the PCHA contribution pro tanto against the initial verdict and then arrive at appellants’ liability by multiplying the result by 7.5%. In this case however, I would first deduct from the initial verdict the plaintiff’s percentage for comparative negligence, then deduct the PCHA contribution, and then apply the 7.5%.
I am hereby authorized to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this dissent.

 In this case the horizontal scheme of adjustment among the joint tort-feasors was not triggered by the filing of any cross complaints.