Daugherty v. Hershberger

• Decision Date: 12 November 1956
• Citation: 386 Pa. 367,126 A.2d 730
• Parties: Wilbert DAUGHERTY v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Elaine Catherine DAUGHERTY v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Burdel Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Leora Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Rodney Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Gertrude WILLIAMS v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant. Elaine Catherine DAUGHERTY, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl D. Williams, Deceased, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.
• Court: Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Page 730

126 A.2d 730

386 Pa. 367

Wilbert DAUGHERTY v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Elaine Catherine DAUGHERTY v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Burdel Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Leora Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Wilbert DAUGHERTY, Guardian of Rodney Daugherty, a minor, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Gertrude WILLIAMS v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Elaine Catherine DAUGHERTY, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl D. Williams, Deceased, v. Earl J. HERSHBERGER, Appellant, John Mong, Additional Defendant.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Nov. 12, 1956.

Bernard F. Quinn, Quinn, Leemhuis, Plate & Dwyer, Erie, for appellants.

John E. Britton, Gifford, Graham, MacDonald & Illig, Fred B. Sieber, David S. Gifford, Erie, for appellees.

Before STERN, C. J., and JONES, BELL, CHIDSEY, MUSMANNO, and ARNOLD, JJ.

HORACE STERN, Chief Justice.

This case calls for an interpretation of the language of Section 4 of the 'Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act' of July 19, 1951, P.L. 1130, 12 P.S. § 2082 et seq. Section 7 of the Act provides that it 'shall be so interpreted and construed as to effectuate its general purpose to make uniform the law of those states that enact it.' However, it would seem that the issue here presented is one of first impression generally.

On July 13, 1952, there was a collision at the intersection of two roads in Erie County in which three motor vehicles were involved, one driven by Wilbert Daugherty, one by Earl J. Hershberger, and one by John Mong. Daughterty and his wife and three children who were passengers in his car suffered personal injuries, as did also two other passengers, Carl D. Williams and Gertrude Williams; Carl D. Williams subsequently died and Elaine Catherine Daugherty became the administratrix of his estate.

Daugherty and his six passengers entered into settlement negotiations with John Mong and arrived at compromise settlements of their claims against him. These settlements were approved by the Court of Common Pleas of Erie County and payments were made thereunder as follows:

                Wilbert Daugherty                $5,145.23
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian
                  for Burdel Daugherty              425.00
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian
                  for Leora Daugherty               650.00
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian
                  for Rodney Daugherty            1,000.00
                Elaine Catherine Daugherty          779.77
                Gertrude Williams                 1,500.00
                Elaine Catherine Daugherty
                  Administratrix of the Estate
                  of Carl D. Williams             4,000.00
                                                ----------
                      Total                     $13,500.00
                

In pursuance of these settlements all the claimants executed releases in favor of Mong in accordance with the 1951 Act. The releases discharged him from any and all liability and provided that the damages recoverable against all other tortfeasors were reduced to the extent of Mong's pro-rata share, which would therefore constitute a 50% reduction thereof. Thereupon three suits were instituted against Hershberger, one by the five Daughertys, one by Gertrude Williams and one by Elaine Catherine Daugherty, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl D. Williams, and in each of these suits Hershberger joined Mong as additional defendant. The cases were consolidated for trial, which resulted in verdicts against both Hershberger and Mong as follows:

                Wilbert Daugherty                $5,559.49
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian
                  for Burdel Daugherty              500.00
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian,
                  for Leora Daugherty             1,000.00
                Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian,
                  for Rodney Daugherty              500.00
                Elaine Catherine Daugherty        2,000.00
                Gertrude Williams                 1,161.50
                Elaine Catherine Daugherty,
                  Administratrix of the Estate
                  of Carl D. Williams             1,000.00
                                                ----------
                        Total                   $11,720.99
                

Defendant Hershberger filed motions for a new trial which were subsequently withdrawn; motions for judgments n. o. v., which were refused and are not pressed on this appeal; motions to compel reductions of the verdicts in the cases of Wilbert Daugherty, Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Burdel Daugherty, Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Leora Daugherty, and Elaine Catherine Daugherty; and motions to compel discharge or satisfaction of the verdicts in the cases of Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Rodney Daugherty, Gertrude Williams, and Elaine Catherine Daugherty, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl D. Williams. All these motions were overruled and Hershberger now appeals from that action of the court.

The rival contentions of the parties are these: The plaintiffs claim that, since the releases to Mong provided for a reduction of the damages recoverable against other tortfeasors only to the extent of 50% of such damages, they were entitled to recover from Hershberger one-half of each of the verdicts recovered against him, or a total of $5,860.50, and this wholly irrespective of the amounts of the settlements made by plaintiffs with Mong. The court below adopted this view. Hershberger on the other hand contends that, since Wilbert Daugherty's verdict was for $5,559.49, but he had already received under his settlement with Mong $5,145.23, Hershberger should be held liable to him only for the difference, namely $414.26, and therefore that the verdict should be reduced to that amount. By the same token, the verdict of Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Burdel Daugherty, should be reduced from $500 to $75, being the excess of the verdict over the $425 already paid this plaintiff by Mong. Similarly, the verdict of Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Leora Daugherty, should be reduced from $1,000 to $350, being the excess of the verdict over the $650 paid by Mong. Hershberger further claims that since Wilbert Daugherty, Guardian for Rodney Daugherty, received more from Mong than the verdict in his favor, that Gertrude Williams received more from Mong than the verdict in her favor, and that Elaine Catherine Daugherty, Administratrix of the Estate of Carl D. Williams, received more from Mong than the verdict in her favor, these three verdicts should be discharged altogether. In the case, however, of Elaine C. Daugherty, who obtained a verdict of $2,000 but had received from Mong only $779.77, Hershberger admits that he would be liable to her for one-half of the verdict or $1,000 because such half is greater than the consideration received by her for her release of Mong. Accepting these contentions of Hershberger his liability to plaintiffs would then amount only to the sum of $414.26, $75, $350, and $1,000, or a total of $1,839.26, as contrasted with the $5,860.50 claimed by the plaintiffs.

The question arises as to the correct application of Section 4 of the 1951 Act. When properly construed does it provide for a reduction of Hershberger's liability only to the extent of one-half of the verdicts against him as provided in the releases given to Mong, or does it permit of a reduction of each verdict in the amount of the considerations severally paid by Mong wherever such consideration was greater than a one-half reduction would be? The answer would seem to be clear, because, whatever apparent inequity or injustice might sometimes be entailed as between claimants, the tortfeasor who settles and the tortfeasors who remain liable, by a literal interpretation of the act (and counsel have strenuously argued the pros and cons in that regard), the language of the section would seem to be wholly unambiguous. It is as follows: 'A release by the injured person of one joint tortfeasor whether before or after judgment, does not discharge the other tortfeasors unless the release so provides, but reduces the claim against the other tortfeasors in the amount of the consideration paid for the release or in any amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced if greater than the consideration paid.' In other words, if the proportion of reduction provided by the release is greater than the amount of the consideration paid for the release, such proportion of reduction prevails, but if, on the other hand, the consideration paid for the release is greater than the proportion of reduction provided by the release, then the amount of the consideration paid for the release prevails.

In Uniform Laws Annotated, Volume 9, p. 162, the Commissioners' note to Section 4 paraphrases its language by stating that 'a release of one tortfeasor will benefit the others by reducing the claim against them in the amount of the consideration paid therefor, or in the amount or proportion by which the release provides that the total claim shall be reduced, whichever is larger.' While the issue and the decision thereon in Raughley v. Delaware Coach Co., 8 Terry 343, 47 Del. 343, at page 348, 91 A.2d 245, at page 247, are not here in point, it is of some interest to note that in the court's opinion in that case it was stated that the effect of the express language of Section 4 of the Uniform Act, 10 Del.C. § 6304, 'upon the injured person's claim against the remaining defendant is to reduce it in an amount at least as great as the consideration paid for the release, and even greater than that figure if it so provides. In this manner, it bars the plaintiff from obtaining a double recovery.'

It may be added that the case of Davis v. Miller, 385 Pa. 348, 123 A.2d 422, relied upon by the plaintiffs, has no bearing upon the present issue because, while it was there stated that the claimants could recover from the remaining tortfeasor only the pro-rata share provided for in the release, namely, one-half of the...