McReynolds v. Krebs

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 barred the defendant's cross-claims for contribution, since the statute provides that apportioned damages are not subject to any contribution right.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

Lisa Krebs sued Carmen McReynolds and General Motors GM for serious injuries she received when McReynolds’s car struck the GM vehicle in which Krebs was a passenger. McReynolds cross-claimed against GM for contribution and set-off. After Krebs settled with GM for an undisclosed amount, the trial court dismissed McReynolds’s cross-claims, reasoning that OCGA § 51-12-33, as amended by the Tort Reform Act of 2005, had abolished joint and several liability and replaced contribution and set-off with a process of apportionment of damages among multiple tortfeasors. The jury found McReynolds liable for Krebs’s injuries and awarded $1,246,000.42 in damages. The trial court entered judgment against McReynolds for that full amount and denied her motion for new trial. McReynolds appealed the trial court’s rulings on the cross-claims and other matters, but the Court of Appeals affirmed. McReynolds v. Krebs , 307 Ga. App. 330 705 SE2d 214 2010. We granted certiorari to consider two questions: 1 Did the Court of Appeals correctly construe OCGA § 51-12-33 to require a trier of fact to apportion an award of damages among multiple defendants when the plaintiff is not at fault; and 2 Did the Court of Appeals correctly find that McReynolds’s insurer made a counteroffer in response to Krebs’s settlement demand Having decided that the answer to both questions is yes, we affirm.

1. McReynolds contends that the trial court and the Court of Appeals erred in construing OCGA § 51-12-33 to bar her cross-claims against GM for contribution and set-off. It is undisputed that Krebs was not at fault in the accident. McReynolds argues that § 51-12-33 requires apportionment of damages only where the plaintiff is partially at fault, and therefore the statutory apportionment scheme does not apply to this case and her cross-claims were viable. We disagree.

McReynolds v. Krebs

O.C.G.A. § 51-12-33 barred the defendant's cross-claims for contribution, since the statute provides that apportioned damages are not subject to any contribution right.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report