Court Opinion

ID: 9527739
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:33:36.188404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:10.330263
License: Public Domain

Shanahan, J.,
dissenting.
In view of Meehan v. Philadelphia, 184 Pa. Super. 659, 136 A.2d 178 (1957), and Hladek v. John A. Dalsin & Son, 310 Minn. 178, 245 N.W.2d 593 (1976), the better rule appears to be that, when Metro settled its claim against the tort-feasor and gave up its right of future subrogation, Metro correspondingly gave up its right to any credit equal to Turner’s share of the settlement. Otherwise, the compromise intended and entered in view of the respective claims of the employer and employee *197would be frustrated. The settlement operated not only as a compromise of claims against the third-party tort-feasor but also as a compromise of respective rights in the proceeds of settlement. See Hladek v. John A. Dalsin & Son, supra.