Garner v. Wyeth Laboratories, Inc.

• Decision Date: 31 March 1984
• Docket Number: 82-0628-1.,Civ. A. No. 82-0629-1
• Citation: 585 F. Supp. 189
• Parties: Reginald R. GARNER, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. and Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Defendants. Anita C. GARNER, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. and Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina

585 F. Supp. 189

Reginald R. GARNER, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. and Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Defendants.

Anita C. GARNER, Plaintiff, v. WYETH LABORATORIES, INC. and Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, Defendants.

Civ. A. Nos. 82-0629-1, 82-0628-1.

United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Charleston Division.

March 31, 1984.

W. Ralph Garris, Columbia, S.C., for plaintiffs.

Joseph H. McGee, Burnet R. Maybank, III, Charleston, S.C., for defendants.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT

HAWKINS, District Judge.

These companion product liability actions came on for hearing before the court on January 25, 1984, upon the defendants' motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The plaintiffs, Anita C. Garner and Reginald R. Garner, are husband and wife. The defendants, Wyeth Laboratories, Inc. and Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation, are the manufacturers and distributors of the birth control pill, Ovral. Mrs. Garner used Ovral from 1974 to 1976.

The plaintiffs' complaints, which sound in negligence, strict liability in tort, breach of warranty, and fraud, allege that as a result of defendants' failure to properly test, manufacture and label Ovral, Anita Garner suffered two major heart attacks. They seek actual and punitive damages. The defendants move for summary judgment on the ground that the doctrine of satisfaction is a complete defense to all plaintiffs' theories. For the reasons stated below, this court holds that satisfaction is a complete defense. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment should be granted.

These actions were instituted on March 30, 1982. The plaintiffs filed amended complaints on April 19, 1982, which added Wyeth Laboratories Division of American Home Products Corporation as a party defendant. The defendants answered the complaints on May 28, 1982. On August 8, 1983, the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. As a result of a previous lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the United States of America, defendants argue that complete satisfaction in the amount of $215,000.00 was received for the injuries which form the basis of the present lawsuit. Alternatively, they assert that the plaintiffs' theories of negligence, strict liability in tort, breach of warranty, and fraud also fail as a matter of law. At the January 25th hearing, counsel for plaintiffs and defendants agreed to reserve argument on the alternative grounds for summary judgment and have the court consider only the defense of satisfaction.

Both lawsuits are premised upon conduct which took place in the early 1970's. Mr. and Mrs. Garner, as retired Army personnel, were living in Richland County, South Carolina. The United States of America operates Moncrief Army Hospital at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. This hospital provides medical services for retired military personnel such as the Garners.

Mrs. Garner smoked, was overweight, had high blood cholesterol and a family history of cardiovascular disease. In 1970 she began taking medication for hypertension because she suffered from high blood pressure. Despite her medical condition, she continued to smoke and did not lose weight.

Mrs. Garner became pregnant in 1974. A spontaneous abortion caused her to be admitted to Moncrief Army Hospital on September 7th of that year. When she was discharged from the hospital's obstetrical-gynecological clinic, Mrs. Garner received a one-year prescription for Ovral, which was subsequently renewed. At that time, the Army doctor advised her that if she suffered any side effects, she should return to the clinic.

Unaware that Ovral could further elevate her blood pressure, Mrs. Garner did not have it monitored on a regular basis after she began taking the contraceptive. On May 7, 1976, she suffered a severely disabling myocardial infarction. She also alleges that she experienced congestive heart failure on September 27, 1976.

Mrs. Garner and her husband filed companion medical malpractice actions against the United States of America pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b). The case was tried without a jury on July 17 and 18, 1980. Because of Mrs. Garner's medical history, plaintiffs claimed that the defendant was negligent in prescribing Ovral to her and in not monitoring her blood pressure. United States District Judge Robert F. Chapman agreed with the plaintiffs. He found the doctor's negligence in prescribing Ovral and in not monitoring her blood pressure to be the proximate cause of her May 7th heart attack. He issued an order in favor of Mrs. Garner for $175,000.00 and for Mr. Garner in the amount of $40,000.00. These judgments were satisfied except for costs.

SATISFACTION

This court sits as a South Carolina court in this diversity action and, therefore, looks to South Carolina substantive law for authority. Stanback v. Parke, Davis and Company, 657 F.2d 642 (4th Cir.1981).

The defendants rely on a simple hornbook proposition: a plaintiff is entitled to but one compensation for his loss. This rule, which is equitable in nature, is designed to prevent an injured party from recovering twice for the same injury. Since the plaintiffs fully litigated and received compensation for all compensable injuries, the defendants conclude that they are barred from filing a second suit premised upon the same injuries.

The plaintiffs attempt to evade this defense by relying on Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886 (1979). It provides that "the discharge of a judgment against one of several tortfeasors each of whom is liable for a single harm is treated like a release or a covenant not to sue given to one of several tortfeasors for a claim not reduced to judgment."

Plaintiffs argue that under this rule they are not precluded from bringing a second action against different defendant tortfeasors. In the event, however, that they prevail and recover a judgment, plaintiffs concede that defendants are entitled to a credit of $175,000.00 and $40,000.00 in their respective actions.

Counsel for all parties agree that the South Carolina Supreme Court has not considered the question of whether or not to adopt § 886. In the absence of controlling law, this court must attempt to predict the determination that the state Supreme Court would reach on the question. Quinones v. United States, 492 F.2d 1269 (3d Cir.1974); William Randall Phillips v. United States of America, 508 F.Supp. 537 (D.S.C.1980).

The law in South Carolina is unequivocal on the issue of satisfaction. A plaintiff may have but one satisfaction for a wrong done. Truesdale v. South Carolina Highway Department, 264 S.C. 221, 213 S.E.2d 740 (1975); National Bank of Savannah v. Southern Ry., Carolina Division, 107 S.C. 28, 91 S.E. 972 (1917).

At common law, the release of one joint tortfeasor released all other joint tortfeasors. W. PROSSER, LAW OF TORTS, § 49 (4th ed. 1971). This was true regardless of parties' intentions. It was also the rule in South Carolina. National Bank of Savannah v. Southern Ry., Carolina Division, 107 S.C. 28, 91 S.E. 972 (1917).

Today, however, covenants not to sue and releases receive different treatment than do satisfied judgments. In Bartholomew v. McCartha, 255 S.C. 489, 179 S.E.2d 912 (1971), the South Carolina Supreme Court altered the common law rule governing the effect given to a release or a covenant not to sue. "The release of one tort-feasor does not release others who wrongfully contributed to plaintiffs injuries unless this was the intention of the parties, or unless plaintiff has in fact received full compensation amounting to a satisfaction." 255 S.C. at 492, 179 S.E.2d at 914. An injured party is not precluded from bringing a subsequent action merely because one tortfeasor obtained a covenant not to sue or a release. An amount paid by one tortfeasor in consideration of a covenant not to sue or a release is regarded as satisfaction, pro tanto, so as to reduce the amount of damages-recoverable against other tortfeasors. Powers v. Temple, 250 S.C. 149, 156 S.E.2d 759 (1967); McWhirter v. Otis Elevator Co., 40 F.Supp. 11 (D.S.C. 1941).

Notwithstanding the more liberal rule governing releases and covenants not to sue, satisfied judgments obtained as a result of a single injury prevent subsequent lawsuits. Pendleton v. Columbia Ry. Gas and Electric Co., 133 S.C. 326, 131 S.E. 265 (1926). An injured person can sue any one or all of several tortfeasors whose negligent acts or omissions unite to produce an injury. Tortfeasors may be sued separately and a judgment rendered against each. If this is the case, the plaintiff must elect which judgment to collect. It is clear, however, that a plaintiff is entitled to only one satisfaction. Once a judgment is satisfied, the injured party is precluded as a matter of law from bringing another action. National Bank of Savannah v. Southern Ry., Carolina Division, 107 S.C. 28, 91 S.E. 972 (1917); Accord Atlantic Coast Line Railroad Company v. Whetstone, 243 S.C. 61, 132 S.E.2d 172 (1963); Camp v. Petroleum Carrier Corp., 204 S.C. 133, 28 S.E.2d 683 (1944).

The plaintiffs argue that if the South Carolina Supreme Court was presented with this case it would extend the rule adopted in Bartholomew v. McCartha, 255 S.C. 489, 179 S.E.2d 912 (1971), to give satisfied judgments the same treatment as releases and covenants not to sue. This is the rule reflected in Section 886 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. The Garners also contend that the damages sought in the instant actions are different from those recovered in the previous ones because punitive damages cannot be recovered against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

It is true that the South Carolina Supreme Court has not had occasion to reconsider the effect of a satisfied judgment since it adopted the more liberal rule regarding covenants not to sue and...