Court Opinion

ID: 9664215
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 00:07:45.348055+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:02.776763
License: Public Domain

Targonski, J.
(concurring m part). A careful reading of my colleagues’ prevailing opinion indicates that we must concur in the conclusion reached therein by reversing but must respectfully disagree with that portion of the opinion which says that for purposes of avoiding redundancy it is necessary to allow mitigation of the dramshop judgment for “actual” damages by the wrongful death settlement for “pecuniary” damages. I believe that that conclusion seeks to do by indirection that which cannot be done directly. There is no question that the dramshop defendant could not sue for contribution from the car driver. Yet by setting off the recovery from the car driver against the dramshop-defendant judgment, there appears to be such indirect contribution. We concur in part in the result as indicated above.