Court Opinion

ID: 9645076
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 21:12:08.978728+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:22.807645
License: Public Domain

Billings, J.,
dissenting. I am unable to reach the illogical and internally inconsistent result of the majority opinion. I concur in the Court’s holding that where at least one co-defendant has made a liquidated settlement the “court method” of computing damages must be used in order to avoid improper inferences, confusion and prejudice. In the case at hand it is impossible to determine whether the jury was confused, made improper inferences or was prejudiced by the court advising the jury of the settlement, since one cannot invade the sanctity of the jury room. The majority blithely ignores this fact. I would reverse and remand for new trial.
The concurring opinion, while indicating that the “jury method” should be re-examined by the rules committee, would merely continue to adhere to an antiquated policy previously followed by a few, but not all, of the trial courts although never directly addressed by this Court.
I am authorized to say that Mr. Justice Hill joins in this dissent.