Court Opinion

ID: 9630411
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:10:39.254791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:38.195484
License: Public Domain

KAUGER, Justice,
concurring in result:
I agree with the majority's conclusion that insofar as joint and several liability is concerned, the common law right of the plaintiff to recover all damages from any tort-feasor regardless of the degree of negligence that party contributed to the plaintiffs damages, “continues to be the law.” I also agree that under 12 O.S.1981 § 832(B)1 a tort-feasor who pays an injured party an amount representing more than his proportionate share of damages may recover the excess payment from a joint tortfeasor in a contribution action. Finally, I agree that in a contribution action brought pursuant to 12 O.S.1981 § 832(B) joint tortfeasors are liable for their proportionate share of the damages based upon their degree of fault.
However, the majority opinion holds that “... (traditionally, pro rata has meant that each tortfeasor’s share would be equal regardless of their degree of fault ...” It is this presumption together with the implication that the terms “pro rata” and “proportionate” mean different things which concerns me.
Section 832(B) provides that joint tort-feasors may be compelled to contribute their pro rata share of the entire liability. Because the Legislature did not define “pro rata” in conjunction with § 832, and because Oklahoma did not adopt either of the Uniform Acts,2 the term should be given its plain and ordinary meaning.3 Webster’s defines pro rata as being “according to the share, interest, or liability of each.” 4 According to Prosser and Keeton on Torts, a tortfeasor’s “pro rata share” is normally arrived at by dividing the total damages by the number of tortfeasors. Nevertheless, the treatise also recognizes that in some jurisdictions distribution of liability is in proportion to the comparative fault of the defendants.5 Many courts have determined that the terms “pro rata” and “proportionate” are synonoymous6 — the relation of one portion to another.7 Oklahoma is one of these. In Equity Mut. Ins. Co. v. Spring Valley Wholesale Nursery, Inc., 747 P.2d 947, 954 (Okla.1987), we found *60that a pro rata clause in an insurance policy limited coverage to a proportionate share in relation to all coverage available for the covered risk.

. Title 12 O.S.1981 § 832(B) provides:
“The right of contribution exists only in favor of a tort-feasor who has paid more than his pro rata share of the common liability, and his total recovery is limited to the amount paid by him in excess of his pro rata share. No tort-feasor is compelled to make contribution beyond his own pro rata share of the entire liability.”

. Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act § 2, 12 U.L.A. 57 (1939) and Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act § 2, 12 U.L.A. 87 (1955).

. Matter of Income Tax Protest of Ashland Exploration, Inc., 751 P.2d 1070, 1073 (Okla.1988); Hess v. Excise Bd., 698 P.2d 930, 932 (Okla.1985); State v. Sims, 690 P.2d 1052, 1054 (Okla.1984).

. W. Neilson, Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, p. 1986 (2nd Ed. G. & C. Merriam Co., 1952).

. W. Keeton, Prosser & Keeton on Torts, pp. 340-41, § 50 (5th Ed. West Publishing Co. 1984).

. Hager v. McDonald, 65 F. 200, 202 (W.D.Mo.1895); Commercial Union Assurance Co. v. Western Farm Bureau Ins. Co., 93 N.M. 507, 601 P.2d 1203-04 (1979); McKnight v. Pardon, 313 Ky. 154, 230 S.W.2d 631, 632 (1950); United Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Dupree, 41 Ala.App. 601, 146 So.2d 91, 96 (1962); Home Ins. Co. v. Continental Ins. Co., 180 N.Y. 389, 73 N.E. 65, 66 (1905). See also, Central Nat'l Ins. Co. v. Devonshire Coverage Corp., 426 F.Supp. 7, 11 (D.Neb.1976), modified, 565 F.2d 490 (1977) (The definition used by the district court was retained by the appellate court.). But see, Health Care Equalization Comm. v. Iowa Medical Soc'y, 501 F.Supp. 970, 978 (S.D.Iowa 1980), aff'd, 851 F.2d 1020 (1988).

. United Sec. Life Ins. Co. v. Dupree, see note 6, supra.