Court Opinion

ID: 9656471
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:48:51.3478+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:32.451013
License: Public Domain

WOLLMAN, Chief Justice
(concurring in part, dissenting in part).
I concur in that portion of the opinion which reverses the judgment in part and remands the case for the determination of Automated’s claims for contribution.
I would hold, however, that the trial court should have given the requested instruction regarding the income tax consequences of an award for damages for personal injury. I agree with the rationale set forth in Norfolk & W. Ry. Co. v. Liepelt, 444 U.S. 490, 100 S.Ct. 755, 62 L.Ed.2d 689 (1980); Domeracki v. Humble Oil & Refining Co., 443 F.2d 1245 (3rd Cir. 1971); Blanchfield v. Dennis, 292 Md. 319, 438 A.2d 1330 (1982).
I am authorized, to state that Justice FOSHEIM joins in this concurrence in part, dissent in part.