The Joint-Tortfeasor Release Plaintiffs Should Fear

The case brought into play the Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act, which calls for reduction of a claim against a non-settling defendant by the amount paid or in any proportion provided for in the release.



There are two main types set-offs in such releases: pro tanto and pro rata.



A pro-tanto release calls for the plaintiff to receive a dollar-for-dollar set-off from a verdict against a non-settling defendant in an amount equal to that received from the settling defendant.



With a pro rata release, the plaintiff’s verdict is reduced by the proportionate share that is attributed by the jury to the settling defendant.



Pro rata releases are more common in Pennsylvania because settling defendants feel such releases will protect them from a contribution claim.



The Baker court applied pro tanto principles to the release at issue in that case, but as Schuylkill County C.P. Judge Stine pointed out in the Williams opinion, the Supreme Court did so because the parties in Baker actually negotiated a pro tanto release.



The justices did not negate the validity of pro rata releases in general, Stine said.



“We do not believe that the decision in Baker changes the law of this commonwealth as suggested by the plaintiffs,” Stine said.



“It remains a ‘risk’ of any plaintiff who accepts and agrees to sign a ‘pro rata’ release that he or she will be precluded from fully recovering all of the damages subsequently awarded by a jury against non-settling defendants.”

Accelerating Car

The underlying cause of action stemmed from a motor vehicle accident in which Frank Williams was seriously injured. Theresa Ogrodnick drove the car that struck Williams. Ogrodnick claimed the Mercedes-Benz she was operating at the time suddenly began accelerating on its own accord as she was descending a hill.



At the bottom of the hill was a divided highway. Ogrodnick attempted to turn the car onto the portion of the road curving left, but she lost control of the car. The car traveled along an embankment, spun through the air, landed on its wheels, traveled north and struck Williams, who was standing near the road.



Williams suffered nearly fatal injuries and was rendered a paraplegic.



An investigation revealed that the cause of the accident was the failure of a plastic bushing in the car, which caused the engine throttle linkage to jam in the open position.



The car had been purchased originally in 1979 from Carson-Pettit Inc., an authorized Mercedes-Benz dealer, by defendant Reading Anthracite Co. (RAC). In 1984, Mercedes recalled the model, a 450 SEL 6.9. The recall involved a repair of defective bell crank bushing free of charge.



As part of the recall campaign, a recall notice was to be sent to each vehicle owner. Several notices were sent to RAC. Several follow-up postcards were sent and calls made by Carson-Pettit, Stine said, but the repairs were never made to the car.



In 1989, RAC transferred title of the vehicle to Caitlin Curran. At the time of the accident, the car was titled in her name, but maintained under the control of her father, John Curran Jr. The car was used primarily to transport John Curran Sr. Ogrodnick was transporting Curran Sr. on the day of the accident.



After the accident, William sued Mercedes-Benz of North America Inc., Daimler Benz North America Corp. and Carson-Pettit Inc. for strict liability and negligence and Curran Jr., Caitlin Curran and Ogrodnick for negligence. Ogrodnick also sued RAC.



Williams settled with the Mercedes defendants, resulting in the execution of a joint-tortfeasor release between the parties. The court then granted a motion by the Mercedes defendants for partial discontinuance of the claims against them.



The motion was granted subject to a provision that any further claims by the plaintiffs against the remaining defendants were “subject to the credit provided to the non-settling defendants as set forth in the joint tortfeasor releases.”



The RAC and Curran defendants filed a motion to strike the discontinuance. They argued the Mercedes defendants needed to be reinstated in order to ascertain the percentage of liability of all parties to effectuate the terms and conditions of the release.



The court issued an order reinstating the Mercedes defendants, requiring them to appear on the case caption and on the verdict slip at trial.



A jury trial resulted in a $7.8 million verdict for Williams and a $225,000 award for Ogrodnick. Liability was apportioned at 90 percent for Mercedes-Benz and Carson-Pettit, 9 percent for RAC and one percent for James Curran Jr.



Williams and Ogrodnick filed motions asserting their right to a judgment notwithstanding the verdict or a new trial. They argued the Mercedes defendants should not have been returned to the caption.



“The plaintiffs argue that because the Mercedes defendants were granted a discontinuance in the action,” Stine said, “that somehow the remaining defendants have waived all rights to any form of contribution from Mercedes defendants, and that the total amount of damages, regardless of the apportionment of liability by the jury, should be assessed against the remaining defendants.”

Different Issues