Court Opinion

ID: 9627538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:47:19.344082+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:40.919028
License: Public Domain

HOWARD, Judge,
dissenting.
I do not agree with the majority opinion because it gives the plaintiff a windfall and does not encourage settlements which is the purpose of A.R.S. § 12-2504. See Bishop v. Klein, 380 Mass. 285, 402 N.E.2d 1365 (1980). There is an annotation on this subject in 71 ALR4th 1108 et seq., in which cases on both sides of this issue can be found. In addition to those cited as contra in the majority opinion are the following: Gomes v. Brodhurst, 394 F.2d 465 (3rd Cir.1967); Theobold v. Angelos, 44 N.J. 228, 208 A.2d 129 (1965); Peterson v. Mult-nomah County School Dist. No. 1, 64 Or. App. 81, 668 P.2d 385 (1983); Erdman v. Lower Yakima Valley, Washington Lodge No. 2112 of B.P.O.E., 41 Wash.App. 197, 704 P.2d 150 (1985); and Pierringer v. Hoger, 21 Wis.2d 182, 124 N.W.2d 106 (1963).
The plaintiff should receive only that to which he is entitled. Under the method used by the majority opinion the plaintiff would be receiving approximately 55 percent of the total damages which is more than the 30 percent determined by the jury, thus giving him more than that to which he is entitled.1
The court in Peterson v. Multnomah County School Dist. No. 1, supra, hit the nail on the head when it said:
Although there is some logic to plaintiff’s argument, we do not adopt it. If only one plaintiff and one defendant are before it, the jury’s apportionment of fault properly should reflect its view of how much responsibility those parties bear for the injury compared to one another, not compared to the universe of other possible parties about whom the jury is not informed and, theoretically, is unaware. Moreover, settlements are generally based on the parties’ speculations about what the plaintiff would recover against the defendant if the case went to trial. Presumably, parties take comparative fault into account in reaching settlements, and they also consider what the jury might find the comparative fault of codefendants to be. The effect of plaintiff’s argument would be to place the risk of a codefendant’s advantageous settlement on the defendant who did not settle rather than on the plaintiff who did.
64 Or.App. at 90, 668 P.2d at 394. (Emphasis in original.)
The method used by the majority encourages the plaintiff to “roll the dice” instead of settling. The settlement should be deducted after applying the plaintiff’s percentage of fault.
I would affirm.

■

. $120,000 + $250,000 = $370,000 which is approximately 55 percent of $650,000.