 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Sumalpong v. A.C. Fire Protection Co.2/5/2002
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
A.C. Fire Protection Co. ("defendant") appeals from an order granting in part and denying in part its motion to vacate the judgment in favor of Joanne S. Sumalpong ("plaintiff"). Defendant contends that the jury's award of $5,000 in non-economic damages should be reduced by the amount plaintiff received in a settlement with defendant's employee. It also argues that plaintiff should have been ordered to pay costs because she rejected a valid offer under Code of Civil Procedure section 998 (hereafter, "section 998") and did not obtain a more favorable verdict at trial. We agree with the first contention, but disagree with the second.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Plaintiff was injured when a truck driven by Albert Jones collided with her car. Jones was employed by defendant and was on his way to a job site at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued Jones, defendant and Randall Schram, an officer of defendant.
Jones settled with plaintiff before trial for $15,000. A jury trial was held on the claims against defendant and Schram, during which the court granted Schram's motion for directed verdict. The case against defendant was submitted to the jury under a theory of respondeat superior, with instructions that defendant was liable to the same extent as Jones.
The jury returned a special verdict determining that Jones had been negligent and had caused plaintiff's damages. It awarded plaintiff $5,000 in economic damages and $5,000 in non-economic damages. The court entered a judgment against defendant for $10,000 plus costs. Plaintiff filed a costs memorandum.
Defendant brought a motion to vacate the judgment on the grounds that (1) the amount of the judgment should be reduced by the amount already paid by Jones in settlement; and (2) plaintiff was not entitled to costs because she had rejected a $50,001 offer to compromise under section 998.
The trial court agreed the Jones settlement should be applied against the $5,000 award for economic damages, but concluded that Civil Code section 1431.2 barred any reduction of the non-economic damages. It reduced the economic damages to zero and left intact the award of $5,000 in non-economic damages. The court ruled that the section 998 offer was untimely and awarded costs to plaintiff.
DISCUSSION
Offset for Non-economic Damages
Defendant argues that the court should have reduced the amount of non-economic damages to zero to reflect an offset for the Jones settlement. We agree.
When two or more parties are liable for the same tort and one of them settles with the plaintiff before trial, any judgment against the non-settling party must be reduced by the amount of the settlement. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 877.) If the settlement completely offsets the damages assessed against the non-settling tortfeasor, the judgment against the latter will be reduced to zero by operation of law. (Syverson v. Heitman (1985) 171 Cal.App.3d 106, 110.) This procedure satisfies the goal of preventing a double recovery arising out of the same wrong. (See McComber v. Wells (1999) 72 Cal.App.4th 512, 517.)
In this case, plaintiff sued defendant and Jones for the same tort. Defendant's liability was vicarious and based solely on the conduct of Jones, its employee. A jury determined that plaintiff had sustained $10,000 in
Page 1 2 3 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|