Car Crash Defendant Not Entitled to Credit for Subsequent Med-Mal Settlement

Mon, 07 Nov 2011 18:02:36 GMT

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held that an auto tort defendant is not entitled to a credit for the plaintiff’s settlement with a doctor who negligently treated the plaintiff’s injuries. Gibson v. City of St. Louis, et al., No. 95949 (Mo.App.E.D., September 20, 2011). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a one car accident. Her injuries included a comminuted fracture of her right femur, a fracture of her right tibial plateau, a fracture of C7 facet joints and numerous lacerations and abrasions. The plaintiff suffered further injury when a doctor negligently rotated her right femur. She settled with the medical malpractice defendants for $80,0000 and released all of the medical malpractice defendants. Plaintiff did not release her claims against the City of St. Louis for the original wreck injuries.

Plaintiff sued the City of St. Louis for the injuries she suffered in the car crash. At trial, plaintiff’s counsel was careful to only admit evidence of injuries relating to the car crash and to exclude evidence of injuries relating to medical negligence. At the conclusion of the trial, plaintiff was awarded damages of $63,600 after reductions for comparative fault. The City moved to have plaintiff’s recovery reduced by the amount of the medical malpractice settlement pursuant to R.S.Mo. § 557.060.

The Court of Appeals noted that there were two injuries, not one indivisible injury. Although it is difficult to distinguish pain from different injuries to the same body part, the Court did not believe that difficulty justified a credit for the defendant. Further, the Court noted that the parties had been careful to exclude evidence of the problems associated with the medical negligence. The Court stated that the auto tort and medical malpractice defendants were not “joint tortfeasors.”

In these situations, the outcome will hinge on the specific facts of the case including whether there were separate events, separate or distinguishable injuries and separate or distinguishable damages. The case provides valuable insight for trial lawyers whose clients have multiple injuries and who need to avoid having a damages award reduced by a settlement for a separate injury.

The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District held that an auto tort defendant is not entitled to a credit for the plaintiff’s settlement with a doctor who negligently treated the plaintiff’s injuries. Gibson v. City of St. Louis, et al., No. 95949 (Mo.App.E.D., September 20, 2011). Plaintiff suffered serious injuries in a one car accident. Her injuries included a comminuted fracture of her right femur, a fracture of her right tibial plateau, a fracture of C7 facet joints and numerous lacerations and abrasions. The plaintiff suffered further injury when a doctor negligently rotated her right femur. She settled with the medical malpractice defendants for $80,0000 and released all of the medical malpractice defendants. Plaintiff did not release her claims against the City of St. Louis for the original wreck injuries.

Broad Definition of Joint Tortfeaser Used to Allocate Settlement Funds in Multiparty Construction Defect Cases

Pamela.Fasick@gmail. (Pamela Fasick) — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 08:39:13 GMT

Nuisance Cannot Be Stated as a Separate Action If It Relies Upon the Same Facts as a Negligence Cause of Action

El Escorial Owners' Association v. DLC Plastering, Inc. (Sept. 6, 2007, B173829, Second District)
32 p. opinion

The El Escorial opinion provides an overview of the complexity of allocating settlement amounts as credits against damage awards in multiparty construction defect cases. In a typical multiparty construction defect case, many of the subcontractors settle out of the action and obtain rulings that their settlements were made in good faith. This always raises the issue of the extent to which those settlement amounts should be credited as offsets to damages for which the nonsettling defendants have been found liable at trial.

El Escorial affirms the judgment in a case where the trial court, with advance notice to the remaining parties, re-examined and altered the allocation of settlement funds in response to the evidence presented at trial. As the Court of Appeal noted: "In a complex multiparty construction defect case the court may have to use 'rough categories' to initially determine good faith settlement allocations for the various types of construction defects."

The Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff's assumption that the defendants could not be joint tortfeasors with many of the settling defendants. At least in construction defect cases, the term joint tortfeasor is broad. If multiple defendants do not act in concert but the damage caused by their acts is indivisible, each defendant is liable for the whole amount of damage. It does not matter whether the defendant's acts were successive or contemporaneous.

On a different issue, the Court of Appeal rejected the plaintiff's contention that it could state a cause of action for nuisance. Where negligence and nuisance causes of action rely upon the same facts about lack of due care, the nuisance claim is a negligence claim.
Presding Justice Gilbert wrote the opinion. Justices Yegan and Perren concurred.

Comment: The Court declined to apply Kaufman & Broad Communities, Inc. v. Performance Plastering, Inc. (2006) 136 Cal.App.4th 212 retroactively, but that case is something for practitioners to keep in mind for current and future cases. It held that when the insured was a suspended corporation (and thus unable to prosecute or defend an action) its insurance company had a duty to intervene in the lawsuit.

Recent Articles tagged joint tortfeasors from LexMonitor

Car Crash Defendant Not Entitled to Credit for Subsequent Med-Mal Settlement

Broad Definition of Joint Tortfeaser Used to Allocate Settlement Funds in Multiparty Construction Defect Cases