Court Opinion

ID: 9766992
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 05:05:41.4657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:27.613787
License: Public Domain

VANCE, Justice,
concurring.
I concur with the majority opinion. I do so because it fairly apportions liability according to the percentage of fault.
In Hilen v. Hays, Ky., 673 S.W.2d 713 (1984), we departed from the rule that contributory negligence is a bar to recovery in actions grounded on negligence. This rule had existed in Kentucky for more than a 100 years. On several occasions the general assembly declined to change the rule, yet the majority of this court saw fit to change *505it by judicial fiat on the ground that “in a system in which liability is based upon fault, the extent of the fault should govern the extent of the liability.” Thus we held that a plaintiff who is only partially at fault cannot fairly be required to bear the entire loss. It would seem to follow, therefore, that a defendant who is only partially at fault in causing an injury should not be required to bear the entire loss but should, likewise, be chargeable only to the extent of his fault.
The author of the majority opinion in Hilen v. Hays, supra, which held it basically unfair to charge a plaintiff with a greater share of the loss than his percentage of fault would justify, now dissents from a holding that it is basically unfair to charge a defendant with a greater share of the loss than his percentage of fault would justify. The dissent considers it fair for a defendant who is only 50% responsible for an injury to be saddled with 100% of the liability.
Admittedly, this was true at common law. Joint tortfeasors were each responsible for the entire loss, and the victim could collect his damage from either. At common law there was no contribution among tortfeasors because the negligence of each was considered to have caused the entire damage. Thus, at common law, when a plaintiff recovered a judgment against joint tortfeasors and collected his judgment from one of them, that one had no recourse against the other for contribution.
The gross unfairness of this situation has led most states, by statute, to change the common law and permit contribution between joint tortfeasors, generally on a pro rata basis, extending the fiction that each of joint tortfeasors were equally responsible for the entire injury.
The common law was further improved upon in some states which have adopted a variation of the uniform contribution among tortfeasors act. Arkansas, for example, has provided for contribution among tortfeasors according to the percentage of their fault. Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 34-1001-1009.
Kansas has gone one step further and has provided by statute that liability of joint tortfeasors is not joint and several, but several only, and the liability of each of joint tortfeasors is limited by the percentage of his fault. Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-258a.
In construing the Kansas statute, the Kansas Supreme Court stated:
“The perceived purpose in adopting K.S.A. 60-258a is fairly clear. The legislature intended to equate recovery and duty to pay to degree of fault. Of necessity, this involved a change of both the doctrine of contributory negligence and of joint and several liability. There is nothing inherently fair about a defendant who is 10% at fault paying 100% of the loss, and there is no social policy that should compel defendants to pay more than their fair share of the loss. Plaintiffs now take the parties as they find them. If one of the parties at fault happens to be a spouse or a governmental agency and if by reason of some competing social policy the plaintiff cannot receive payment for his injuries from the spouse or agency, there is no compelling social policy which requires the code-fendant to pay more than his fair share of the loss. The same is true if one of the defendants is wealthy and the other is not. Previously, when the plaintiff had to be totally without negligence to recover and the defendants had to be merely negligent to incur an obligation to pay, an argument could be made which justified putting the burden of seeking contribution on the defendants. Such an argument is no longer compelling because of the purpose and intent behind the adoption of the comparative negligence statute.”
Brown v. Keill, 224 Kan. 195, 580 P.2d 867 (1978). New Mexico has reached the same result by judicial decision rather than by statute. Bartlett v. New Mexico Welding Supply, 98 N.M. 152, 646 P.2d 579 (1982).
The majority opinion, therefore, is not a completely radical departure from the *506mainstream of law completely without precedent in other jurisdictions as contended by the dissent.
Neither does the majority opinion seek to reward a wrongdoer at the expense of the victim. It merely holds that each wrongdoer shall bear a proportionate share of the loss according to his percentages of fault. The rule is a rule of fundamental fairness, and it applies equally to a plaintiff or to a defendant. There is no reason in fairness why one defendant should be required to pay the damages caused by the fault of another defendant.
The dissent maintains that the majority has violated a longstanding rule of statutory construction that statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed. There is no such longstanding rule of statutory construction in Kentucky. In fact, the rule is just the opposite. K.R.S. 446.080 provides:
“All statutes of this state shall be liberally construed with a view to promote their objects and carry out the intent of the legislature, and the rule that statutes in derogation of the common law are to be strictly construed shall not apply to the statutes of this state." [Emphasis added.]