Court Opinion

ID: 9749916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:05:24.745769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:59.910985
License: Public Domain

Proctor, J.
(concurring in part). I agree with that part of Justice Jacobs’ concurring opinion which states that there is no reason to doubt that the second jury’s determination of the amount of damages fairly reflects the actual damages of the plaintiff arising out of the accident. I also agree with Justice Jacobs that there is no just reason to depart from the *243accepted principle that plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction. However, I do not agree with Justice Jacobs’ suggestion that the excess above full satisfaction should go to the parties who settled with the plaintiff prior to trial. No doubt those parties and their counsel carefully evaluated the probability that they and the other parties-defendants might be held negligent, and the probable amount of damages which the jury would find. Such a settlement, the result of an intelligent evaluation of potential liability with resulting damages, should not be disturbed.
I vote to modify.