Court Opinion

ID: 9849541
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:42:22.912369+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:17.518056
License: Public Domain

Zenoff, J.,
concurring:
I concur in the result but I prefer that the subject of releases and partial releases be approached in a manner that appears to me to be more realistic than that applied by the majority. Concededly, distinctions have been applied that still represent the law, but current discussions on the subject leave the impression, with me at least, that the Joint Obligations Act will be applied instead of distinguished. I would write the opinion as follows:
Walter Farmer was injured while riding as a passenger in a Whittlesea taxi driven by Orville Fry. The cab collided with an automobile operated by Floyd Lamb. Lamb was employed by the Nevada Bank of Commerce who leased the automobile *351from the Pyramid Lease Corporation. The accident occurred October 29, 1965. Before trial the lease corporation and the bank were dismissed from the case as parties. The action remained against Lamb, Victor Whittlesea, doing business as Whittlesea Taxi Company, and Fry, the driver of the cab.
In a settlement before trial Farmer executed a document entitled, “COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE,” with Lamb and the bank. For $10,000 Farmer agreed that he would not seek to enforce any judgment that he might obtain from the trial against Lamb or the Nevada Bank of Commerce. A jury awarded a verdict of $13,000 but credited the $10,000 already paid by Lamb and the bank against the judgment, leaving $3,000. Whittlesea and Fry appeal, claiming principally that under NRS 101.010 through 101.060 the covenant constituted a general release and that he and Fry are no longer liable.1 He also on appeal raises the objection that it was error to allow Lamb to participate in the trial when Lamb had already been released under the covenant.
*3521. What is the purpose of the Joint Obligations Act but to retain liability against one while releasing another in order to escape the harsh common-law rule that allows unfair escape in many situations? Drawing fine distinctions between various covenants or agreements is a toe-dance around the rule and is wasted effort when the import of the statute can be given effect simply by stating that the documents are within the statute but that the intention of the parties shall prevail.
Otherwise, as the majority does in this case, stress is placed upon the importance of labels. “Words of release are not used,” states the majority in distinguishing the covenant not to execute, yet even Land v. United States, 231 F.Supp. 883 (N.D. Okla. 1964), cited by the majority, relates that the end result of the document is to release. Thus, I draw my conclusion it is the purpose that counts, not the name tag. See also So. Pac. Co. v. Raish, 205 F.2d 389, 393-94 (9th Cir. 1953); Stephenson v. Duriron Co., 292 F.Supp. 66, 86-87 (S.C. Ohio 1968).
We are in disagreement only on the path we take to reach the same result. Release-type instruments should be declared as within the Joint Obligations statute, and that the legal effect of those instruments which are executed in connection with an incident or transaction should be construed so as to carry out the intention of the parties. This intention is to be sought in the language of the instrument when read in the light of the circumstances surrounding the transaction. McCullough v. Orcutt, 145 N.E.2d 109, 116 (Ill.App. 1957); Pellett v. Sonotone Corp., 160 P.2d 783, 787 (Cal. 1945). The only relevant inquiry equally applicable to all cases in which there has been a discharge in any form is whether there has in fact been full satisfaction. Young v. State, 455 P.2d 889 (Alaska 1969); Prosser, Torts § 46, pp. 270-273 (3rd Ed. 1964); 63 Col.L. Rev. 1142, 1148 (1963). The “express reservation” in this case should be determined in accordance with those guidelines.
2. Appellant labels the “COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE” a complete release of all parties because it contained no reservation of rights to proceed against appellants, although its effect was to release Lamb and his employer, the *353bank. This, they contend, is a carry over of the original common-law principle that release of one joint tort-feasor was a release of all and that Nevada’s Uniform Joint Obligations Act, NRS 101.020, et seq., disqualifies Farmer’s claim because there was no express reservation of rights in the covenant as required by NRS 101.050 and 101.060.
The “express” reservation is ascertained from the intention of the parties. Hicklin v. Anders, 253 P.2d 897 (Ore. 1953); Black v. Martin, 292 P. 577, 580-82 (Mont. 1930). The courts today reject the common-law rule and refuse to allow tort-feasors to escape liability even though another joint tortfeasor has settled with the injured unless the injured’s intention to release all parties or persons is manifest. Were it otherwise, wrongdoers who do not make or share in making reparation are discharged while one willing to right the wrong and no more guilty bears the whole loss. McKenna v. Austin, 134 F.2d 659 (D.C. Cir. 1943), cited in Hansen v. Collett, 79 Nev. 159, 380 P.2d 301 (1963).
When a release or covenant contains express language reserving rights against a specific person any discussion is obviated as to whether or not the plaintiff intended to “release” all tort-feasors not parties to it. However, when this is not present the very fact that the plaintiff brought suit is evidence that he did not intend the settlement to be full satisfaction for the injury. McKenna v. Austin, supra, at 663.
In the present case it would appear from the language of the “COVENANT NOT TO EXECUTE” that the plaintiff never intended to release all parties since he agreed only not to “execute” any judgment he might obtain against Lamb or Nevada Bank of Commerce.2 He intended to get a judgment and he intended to execute the judgment. He merely covenanted not to execute it against Lamb or Nevada Bank of Commerce.
The purpose of the statute is best served by relying upon the statute, not in avoiding it. Such a statute is enacted to prevent the harshness of the common-law rule, not to defeat the intentions of the parties and work as a trap for the unwary. Model Joint Obligations Act, 9B U.L.A., at 353 (1966). When a person is liable for an injury, he should not escape his responsibility on the tenuous ground of lack of proper *354language in the reservation of one’s rights. No magic language should be necessary to expressly reserve the right to sue other tort-feasors. Farmer, Lamb and the bank released only the latter two and none other. The agreement does not acknowledge full compensation, only not to seek further satisfaction from Lamb and his employer. In addition, Farmer would hold them harmless against “. . . any and all contribution by reason of such judgment. . . .”
The words “contribution” and “judgment” connote further action after the settlement. By the release of Lamb and the bank the action remaining could only be against Whittlesea and the cab driver. Contribution contemplates reservation of action against somebody. It seems clear that Farmer intended to proceed against the remaining parties to the lawsuit. Whittle-sea, a tort-feasor, cannot complain for he gets the benefit of the settlement because he is liable only for the balance of the award after the $10,000 is credited.3
3. Although released from any further liability, Lamb’s counsel appeared and participated in the trial. The appellant’s objection does not state how or in what manner Lamb’s participation prejudiced Whittlesea to such extent as to constitute reversible error. So long as Lamb continued as a party in the lawsuit, and it must be remembered that the covenant did not dismiss him as a party, he had a right to appear to protect whatever interests he thought might remain. In the absence of a showing of prejudice the objection is without merit.
Affirmed.

 101.010 Short title. This chapter may be cited as the Uniform Joint Obligations Act.
101.020 Terms defined. In this chapter, unless otherwise expressly stated:
1. “Obligation” includes a liability in tort.
2. “Obligee” includes a person having a right based on a tort.
3. “Obligor” includes a person liable for a tort.
101.030 Discharge of coobligor by judgment. A judgment against one or more of several obligors, or against one or more of joint, or of joint and several obligors, shall not discharge a coobligor who was not a party to the proceedings wherein the judgment was rendered.
101.040 Payments credited to coobligors. The amount or value of any consideration received by the obligee from one or more of several obligors, or from one or more of joint, or of joint and several obligors, in whole or in partial satisfaction of their obligations, shall be credited to the extent of the amount received on the obligations of all coobligors to whom the obligor or obligors giving the consideration did not stand in the relation of a surety.
101.050 Release with reservation of rights. Subject to the provisions of NRS 101.040, the obligee’s release or discharge of one or more of several obligors, or of one or more of joint, or of joint and several obligors, shall not discharge coobligors, against whom the obligee in writing and as part of the same transaction as the release or discharge expressly reserves his rights; and in the absence of such a reservation of rights shall discharge coobligors only to the extent provided in NRS 101.060.
101.060 Release without reservation of rights.
1. If an obligee releasing or discharging an obligor without express reservation of rights against a coobligor, then knows or has reason to know that the obligor released or discharged did not pay so much of the claim as he was bound by his contract or relation with that coobligor to pay, the obligee’s claim against that coobligor shall be satisfied to the amount which the obligee knew or had reason to know *352that the released or discharged obligor was bound to such coobligor to pay.
2. If an obligee so releasing or discharging an obligor has not then such knowledge or reason to know, the obligee’s claim against the coobligor shall be satisfied to the extent of the lesser of two amounts, namely, (1) the amount of the fractional share of the obligor released or discharged, or (2) the amount that such obligor was bound by his contract or relation with the coobligor to pay.

 During the pretrial proceedings the bank and Pyramid Lease Corporation were dismissed as parties from the lawsuit, and the trial court’s judgment corrects the jury verdict in that respect. The eifect remains, however, that neither Lamb or the bank need pay anything more, but Whittlesea and Fry bear the $3,000 of the $13,000 verdict.

 For a fuller discussion of the problem see Prosser, Torts § 46 (3rd Ed. 1964); Restatement of Torts § 885 (1939).