Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 54235
| Decision Date | 06 September 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 54235,54235 |
| Citation | 759 S.W.2d 305 |
| Parties | Robert ELSIE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FIREMASTER APPARATUS, et al., Defendants-Respondents. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Roy W. Strawn, Padberg, McSweeney, Slater & Merz, St. Louis, for plaintiff-appellant.
Robert William Cockerham, Brown, James & Rabbitt, St. Louis, for defendants-respondents.
Plaintiff, Robert Elsie, appeals from a grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants, Firemaster Apparatus, a corporation, and Dana Bentzinger. The issue presented is whether the specific release of a joint tort-feasor by plaintiff also discharged defendants from liability arising out of the same claim. 1 We hold that under Section 537.060, RSMo (1986) the release did not extend to defendants. We therefore reverse and remand.
On December 27, 1982, plaintiff, acting within the scope of his employment with Boswell Oil Company, Inc. (Boswell), was operating a motor vehicle which was struck by a truck driven by defendant Bentzinger, an employee of defendant Firemaster Apparatus. Plaintiff brought an action in the State of Illinois against Boswell, and defendants, Bentzinger and Firemaster Apparatus, for bodily injuries arising out of the accident. That petition was dismissed by the trial court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Thereafter, plaintiff brought a suit against Boswell for the December 27 accident and for an unrelated claim. He also brought a separate action against defendants in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, for the December 27 accident.
Subsequently, in consideration for the payment of $9000, plaintiff executed a release specifically releasing Boswell from any liability on both claims upon which plaintiff had filed suit against Boswell. Defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment in this case alleging "that defendants have been fully and completely released for [sic] any and all liability from the plaintiff pursuant to Section 537.060...." The trial court sustained defendants' motion without specifying its reason. We presume the order was made on the grounds specified in the motion. Lipton Realty, Inc. v. St. Louis Housing Authority, 705 S.W.2d 565, 568 (Mo.App.1986).
On appeal, plaintiff argues defendants were not released because the terms of the agreement did not so provide. Defendants seek the benefit of the release, arguing that it was a general release of any and all claims arising out of the identical accident and that it failed to specifically reserve any rights plaintiff had against defendants.
Under the common law, the release of one tort-feasor released others claimed to be responsible for the same injury. The present statute, Section 537.060, RSMo 1986, and its predecessor, Section 537.060, RSMo 1978, were intended to overcome the common law rule and to permit a claimant to settle with and to release one or more of several joint tort-feasors without impairing the right to collect the balance of the claim from the other joint tort-feasors. The distinction between the 1978 and 1986 versions of the statute is that under the former, claims against non-settling joint tort-feasors were not preserved unless such claims were expressly reserved or the settlement was for less than full satisfaction of the claim. Under the 1986 statute, settling claimants are relieved from the obligation of expressly reserving claims against non-settling defendants. A release given under the 1986 law and silent as to surviving claims against other tort-feasors does not discharge those claims.
Manar v. Park Medical Center, 753 S.W.2d 310, 312 (Mo.App.1988) (citations omitted).
The purpose of a release is to end litigation through settlement. It should not generate additional litigation because of uncertainty in its interpretation. The 1986 statute achieves that purpose by clarifying We acknowledge that the releases in Aherron, Manar, and Arana contain a specific reservation of claims as to non-settling defendants. In the present case, there is no reservation of claims. Although that factual distinction exists, the gravamen of the cases are applicable to the present case. Under the 1986 law a specific reservation of claims, albeit prudent in many cases, is no longer necessary to preserve claims against the non-settling defendants.
the law relating to releases. The clear effect of the law is to preclude the unintended release of a non-settling defendant. 2 Aherron v. St. John's Mercy Medical Center, 713 S.W.2d 498, 501 (Mo. banc 1986). A release of one tort-feasor does not discharge other tort-feasors "unless the terms of the agreement so provide." Section 537.060, RSMo (1986); Arana v. Koerner, 735 S.W.2d 729, 734 (Mo.App.1987)
In this case, we interpret the release in light of the present statute. It is clear that, despite some ritualized and overly broad language, the terms of the agreement do not release defendants. The only party named in the release is Boswell. No contractual relationship existed between Boswell and defendants, such as agent or employee, from which it could be inferred that defendants were to be released. There is nothing to indicate that defendants either participated in or contributed to any settlement between plaintiff and Boswell. Defendants are not referred to in the document by name or by any other designation. In sum, defendants are strangers to the settlement and not entitled to claim its benefits.
The judgment of the trial court is reversed and the case is remanded. 3
BOSWELL OIL COMPANY, INC., Corporation, Defendant.
WARNING--READ CAREFULLY every word printed on this paper. By signing this paper, you agree to give up every right against all parties and ships mentioned in this paper which you ever had, you now have, or you may in the future have because of any matter or any thing whatever from the beginning of the world up to the time you sign this paper.
WHEREAS, Robert E. Elsie of Houston, Missouri, age 58, Social Security No. 377-22-7414, a high school graduate, has filed suit against the Boswell Oil Company, Inc. at Civil Action No. C-1-85-1418, and another suit pending in another court relating to this defendant.
WHEREAS, Robert E. Elsie has agreed to settle this matter for the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) total, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, Robert Elsie agrees to and hereby does execute the following release of all rights.
I, Robert E. Elsie, age 58, of Houston, Missouri, in exchange for the sum of Nine Thousand Dollars ($9,000.00) which I have received, do hereby release and forever discharge Boswell Oil Company, Inc., its heirs I hereby certify that this release is signed by me with the full intention of forever resolving any and all claims I may have against Boswell Oil Company, Inc. I further certify that I am not now under the influence of alcohol or any drug or chemical substance which in any way affects my ability to understand and agree to this release. I have my own counsel present and have been fully advised of my rights. I am not settling this case because of financial hardship nor on the basis of any outside influence of any kind.
executors, administrators, successors, insurers and assigns and their several vessels, and in particular the M/V E.P. Williams, and the owners, agents, charterers, masters, officers and crews of said vessels from each and every right or claim which I now have, or may hereafter have, because of any matter or thing which happened before the signing of this paper; and particularly, but not in limitation of any of the foregoing general terms, because of any and all injuries and/or illnesses sustained by me while employed on the M/V E.P. Williams during the month of May, 1982.
I believe this settlement to be a fair and reasonable settlement under the circumstances and adequately compensates me for releasing my rights against Boswell Oil Company, Inc.
I understand that nothing in this document is or can be construed as an admission of liability on the part of Boswell Oil Company, Inc., and I am aware that such liability is denied.
I further certify that I will never again file suit or make a claim against the Boswell Oil Company, Inc. or any other party or entity herein released for any accident or occurrence which ever happened before this day.
I have asked my attorney to execute this document as witness to my health, sobriety, mental alertness and understanding of my act in releasing all claims against those stated above, in place of a formal seaman's settlement conference before a judge. Such a conference was offered by counsel for Boswell Oil Company, Inc. I am aware that a U.S. District Court Judge would be present to review this settlement, however I am fully satisfied that my chosen counsel has adequately advised me and I therefore waive my right to such conference.
I fully understand that by signing this Release, I am forever giving up any and all rights which I may have against the Boswell Oil...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allison v. Flexway Trucking, Inc.
...Furthermore, Sec. 537.060 was amended significantly in 1983, after Clark and Liberty were decided. 2 See Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 759 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.Ct.App.1988). While the current version of Sec. 537.060 does not "require the court to ignore a plain, clear divestiture of all claims i......
-
Slankard v. Thomas
...Thomas and Oakes/Woosley, and Oakes took no part in the negotiation process. Slankard relies exclusively on Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 759 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.App.E.D.1988). In Elsie, the plaintiff sued his employer claiming damages arising from an automobile accident. He also filed a separa......
-
Young v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A.
...privity to those who did sign it. Plaintiff cites Manar v. Park Lane Med. Ctr., 753 S.W.2d 310 (Mo.App.1988) and Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 759 S.W.2d 305 (Mo.App.1988) for the proposition that Young can maintain her claim because the release does not name Nissan and therefore she has r......
-
Rudisill v. Lewis
...and its interpretive case law appellants' claim against the respondent is not extinguished. Appellants rely on Elsie v. Firemaster Apparatus, 759 S.W.2d 305, 307 (Mo.App.1988). In holding that a release silent as to one tortfeasor did not release him under Mo.Rev.Stat. § 537.060 (1986), the......