Court Opinion

ID: 9722170
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:18:43.887307+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:31.136638
License: Public Domain

Kelly, Justice
(concurring specially).
While I agree with the opinion of the court, I would add two caveats. First, appellant in the instant case had full notice and opportunity to litigate the issue of respondents Campbell’s liability in the first action, but elected not to defend in that action because of the dissimilarity between the Civil Damage Act and negligence causes of action. Cf. Beck v. Groe, 245 Minn. 28, 70 N. W. 2d 886 (1955). If either notice or opportunity to litigate had been denied appellant, I would have favored reversal because the element of common liability would have been conclusively decided against appellant in an action in which he could not have been heard.1 Such a result would offend my notions of fairness, due process, and affording appropriate remedies for wrongs. Minn. Const, art. 1, § 8.
Second, I do not read the majority opinion as intimating continued approval of the element of common liability in future contribution cases. This element has been cogently criticized by commentators. See, e. g., Jens void, A Modern Approach to• Loss Allocation Amoung Tortfeasors in Products Liability Cases, 58 Minn. L. Rev. 723.
Otis, Justice (concurring specially).
I join in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Kelly.

 While Civil Damage Act and other actions arising out of the same injury are typically severed and tried separately, I find nothing in our law that would preclude a Civil Damage Act defendant from participating in the trial of the other action solely for the purpose of litigating his common liability.