 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Skaggs v. Senior Services of Central Illinois1/27/2005
ds." Unzicker, 203 Ill. 2d at 78, 783 N.E.2d at 1033. The revision to section 2-1117 excepts a plaintiff's employer from being considered in the apportioning of fault, but the legislative intent remains the same with respect to minimally responsible defendants. Forcing a minimally responsible defendant to shoulder the non-medical expenses only because the more culpable defendant settled would allow plaintiffs to circumvent the purpose of the statute. In 1993, an Illinois appellate court suggested as follows:
" he rights of a non-settling defendant under section 2-1117 'cannot be negated simply because another tortfeasor has settled with the plaintiff.' [Citation.] * ven where one tortfeasor has settled with the plaintiff, ' he jury should still be able to assess the defendant's relative culpa-bility, and if the defendant's level of fault falls below the 25[%] threshold, its liability is several only and is not affected by the plaintiff's settlement with the other tortfeasor.'" Alvarez v. Fred Hintze Con-struction, 247 Ill. App. 3d 811, 818, 617 N.E.2d 821, 826 (1993), quoting E. Walsh & E. Doherty, Section 2-1117: Several Liability's Effect on Settlement & Contribution, 79 Ill. B.J. 122, 125 (1991).
Only by interpreting section 2-1117 to include settling defendants can section 2-1117 reinforce the policies of the Contribution Act. Including settling defendants in apportioning liability does not discourage settlements, but it certainly better promotes equitable apportionment of damages according to relative fault.
The plain language of the statute includes "defendants sued by the plaintiff." 735 ILCS 5/2-1117 (West Supp. 2003). Even though a defendant settles with a plaintiff and is dismissed from the case, that defendant does not lose its status as a defendant sued by the plaintiff. Therefore, we hold section 2-1117 requires the trier of fact to consider the percentage of fault of settling defendants. Since section 2-1117 allows the trier of fact to consider Help at Home's percentage of fault, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding a good-faith settlement.
B. Motion To Amend the Record
As the material requested to be included in the amended record does not affect the decision of this court, we see no harm in granting the motion. Motion allowed.
III. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated, we affirm the trial court's good-faith determination.
Affirmed.
MYERSCOUGH and KNECHT, JJ., concur.
|