Court Opinion

ID: 9645075
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:12:08.975171+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:22.807212
License: Public Domain

Larrow, J.,
concurring in result. I have no difficulty in affirming the instant case. It is certainly true, as the majority opinion states, that the facts preclude any possibility of prejudice or confusion. See State v. Olds, 141 Vt. —, 443 A.2d 443 (1982). To say that an out-of-court settlement with individual defendants quite clearly at fault would prejudice a jury in favor of large corporate defendants is indeed the “ivory tower” approach, ignoring the facts of life and all logical considerations. I cannot subscribe to such an approach.
But neither can I subscribe to the “policy” approach of leaving the simple mathematics involved to the court, merely to be in line with “recent” cases. I have respect for both the doctrine of stare decisis and the common sense of juries, and I am not convinced of the wisdom of the dictated future “policy.”
Even if the enunciated policy, carefully confined to a “liquidated” settlement, were a desirable one, the manner of its adoption, in a case where it is not required to reach the ultimate result, is undesirable. Its adoption, if there is to be such, should be through the rule-making process, after careful consideration by our Civil Rules Advisory Committee, opportunity for public comment, and recommendation. To create an amendment procedure and then summarily abandon it is judicial vagary at its worst. The appropriate procedure would give birth to a complete policy, rather than dealing with only one of several possibilities. The “policy” adopted in this case leaves a trial court completely without guidance in the situation where (a) the terms of a settlement are disputed rather than conceded, and (b) where the settlement is in kind rather than monetary, and the reasonable value of the consideration is in dispute. In cases where there is a constitutional right of jury trial, the use of the “court method” may well be pre*33eluded in the presence of disputed factual issues. In any event, resort to the rule-making process would birth a product more comprehensive, understandable, and better considered.
I am authorized to say that Chief Justice Barney joins in this concurrence.