Greenemeier by Redington v. Spencer

• Decision Date: 02 June 1986
• Docket Number: No. 84SC319,84SC319
• Parties: Gunnar GREENEMEIER, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Lois REDINGTON, and Lois Redington, individually, Petitioners, v. Darwin SPENCER, Respondent.
• Court: Colorado Supreme Court

Page 710

719 P.2d 710

55 USLW 2008

Gunnar GREENEMEIER, a minor, by his parent and next friend, Lois REDINGTON, and Lois Redington, individually, Petitioners, v. Darwin SPENCER, Respondent.

No. 84SC319.

Supreme Court of Colorado,

En Banc.

June 2, 1986.

Galchinsky & Silverstein, Herbert H. Galchinsky, Edward Grossman, Elizabeth K. Tulloch, Denver, for petitioners.

Henderson & Streelman, Jack D. Henderson, Denver, for respondent.

McDermott, Hansen, Anderson & Reilly, Daniel M. Reilly, Denver, for amicus curiae Colo. Trial Lawyers Ass'n.

Hall & Evans, Richard D. Hall, Denver, for amicus curiae, Colo. Defense Lawyers Ass'n.

Buchanan, Gray, Purvis & Schuetze, John A. Purvis, Robert A. Schuetze, Boulder, for amicus curiae.

LOHR, Justice.

We granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals in Greenemeier v. Spencer, 694 P.2d 850 (Colo.App.1984). That court upheld the judgment of the Jefferson County District Court reducing to zero the compensatory damages awarded by a jury to the plaintiffs in a personal injury case. The reduction was based on a setoff for a payment received by the plaintiffs in settlement from the defendant's joint tortfeasors prior to trial. This case also presents the question of whether a jury should be told of the fact of such a settlement and, if so, of the amount. We conclude that the trial court properly reduced the plaintiffs' compensatory damages. In addition, we hold that absent special circumstances a jury should be informed of the fact of settlement, but not the amount. In this case, however, the trial court's decision not to tell the jury of the settlement was not reversible error. Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals.

I.

The plaintiffs, Gunnar Greenemeier and his mother, Lois Redington, brought suit against two minors, Darwin Spencer and David Sacco, and their parents. The plaintiffs alleged that Darwin Spencer and David Sacco negligently fired BB guns in Greenemeier's direction, hitting him in the eye and causing injury. The plaintiffs further alleged that the parents of the two boys negligently failed to instruct them in the proper use of the BB guns and negligently failed to supervise them. The plaintiffs sought damages for the various losses each allegedly had incurred or would incur in the future as a result of the incident.

Before the case was tried, Greenemeier and Redington reached a settlement with the Saccos whereby the plaintiffs accepted $100,000 in satisfaction of their claims against the Saccos. In the subsequent trial against the Spencers, Greenemeier and Redington requested the court to inform the jury that the plaintiffs had settled with the Saccos for $100,000. The Spencers requested that the jury merely be told that the plaintiffs and the Saccos had reached a settlement. The trial court refused both requests and did not advise the jury of either the fact or the amount of the prior settlement.

At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the court granted the motion of Darwin Spencer's parents for a directed verdict, leaving Darwin Spencer as the only defendant in the case. The jury returned verdicts against Spencer, awarding $8,000 compensatory damages to Redington and $50,000 compensatory and $1,000 exemplary damages to Greenemeier. Upon motion by the defendant, the trial court reduced each of the two compensatory damages awards to zero and directed entry of judgment against Darwin Spencer for only the $1,000 exemplary damages assessed by the jury. The trial court held that the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (Act), §§ 13-50.5-101 to -106, 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.), required that the amount of compensatory damages received by the plaintiffs at trial be reduced by the amount of settlement they had received from the Saccos prior to trial.

Greenemeier and Redington appealed, contending that the trial court erred, first in reducing the awards to $1,000 and second in refusing to inform the jury that the Saccos and the plaintiffs had settled prior to trial. The court of appeals affirmed. Greenemeier v. Spencer, 694 P.2d 850 (Colo.App.1984). Although the three judges on the court of appeals' panel agreed that the trial court had properly reduced the amount of the plaintiffs' compensatory awards by the amount of the prior settlement with the Saccos, they differed concerning whether the jury should have been advised of the prior settlement. Judge Van Cise, writing the opinion of the court, agreed with the trial court's determination that a jury should not be informed that a settlement has occurred. Id. at 853. Chief Judge Enoch dissented on this issue, expressing the view that the jury should have been told of the fact of the settlement, but not the amount paid. In Chief Judge Enoch's opinion, the trial court's failure to give the jury that information constituted reversible error. Id. at 853-54 (Enoch, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). Judge Sternberg adopted a middle ground, agreeing with the dissenting view that the jury should have been advised of the fact of settlement but voting to affirm because the trial court's failure to impart such information to the jury was not shown to have been prejudicial. Id. at 853 (Sternberg, J., concurring and specially concurring).

We granted certiorari to consider both of the issues addressed by the court of appeals. We conclude that the trial court properly reduced to zero the amount of the plaintiffs' compensatory damages awards. In addition, we hold that absent special circumstances, the fact of settlement, but not the amount, should be made known to a jury. Although the trial court in the present case declined to advise the jury of the fact of settlement, the record does not indicate that this refusal adversely affected the cause of substantial justice. Therefore, we affirm the court of appeals in upholding the judgment of the trial court.

II.

Greenemeier and Redington argue that the trial court erred in reducing their compensatory damages award. The plaintiffs contend that by reducing the judgment against Spencer by the amount of the prior settlement with the Saccos, the trial court allowed Spencer to receive "contribution ¹" from the Saccos, despite the following provision of the Act:

There is no right of contribution in favor of any tortfeasor who has intentionally, willfully, or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury ... [suffered by the plaintiff].

§ 13-50.5-102(3), 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.). According to the plaintiffs, the jury must have determined that Darwin Spencer's conduct was willful and wanton because, after being instructed that it could award exemplary damages if it found that Greenemeier's injuries were attended by circumstances of a wanton or reckless disregard of his rights and feelings, ² the jury awarded $1,000 exemplary damages to Greenemeier. Given such a jury determination, the plaintiffs argue, the trial court committed error by allowing Darwin Spencer to benefit from the plaintiffs' settlement with the Saccos. We disagree with the plaintiffs' argument.

In reducing the plaintiffs' compensatory damages award by the amount of the prior settlement, the trial court relied upon section 13-50.5-105(1)(a), 6 C.R.S. (1985 Supp.), which provides for the setoff of settlement payments by one tortfeasor from the claim against other tortfeasors who are liable for the same injury. Section 13-50.5-105(1)(a) states:

(1) When a release or a covenant not to sue or not to enforce judgment is given in good faith to one of two or more persons liable in tort for the same injury or the same wrongful death:

(a) It does not discharge any of the other tortfeasors from liability for the injury or wrongful death unless its terms so provide; but it reduces the claim against the others to the extent of any amount stipulated by the release or the covenant, or in the amount of the consideration paid for it, whichever is greater ....

(emphasis added). In Perlmutter v. Blessing, 706 P.2d 772, 775 (Colo.1985), we noted that where, as in the present case, "the only injuries involved in an action are those for which all tortfeasors are jointly or severally liable, the application of [section 13-50.5-105(1)(a) ] is clear: either the settlement amount or the amount provided for in the settlement document, whichever is greater, must be deducted from the total judgment against the remaining tortfeasors." This type of reduction was recognized in Colorado even before our legislature adopted the Act in 1977. See Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67, 74, 450 P.2d 60, 63 (1969) (noting that in order to avoid overcompensating a plaintiff, a nonsettling defendant is entitled to have the amount of the judgment against him reduced by the amount paid in settlement).

While section 13-50.5-105(1)(a) directs the trial court to adjust a recovering plaintiff's award of damages in order to reflect the occurrence of a prior settlement, section 13-50.5-102(3) speaks to the separate subject of the right of one tortfeasor to receive contribution from another tortfeasor. It is section 13-50.5-105(1)(a), and not section 13-50.5-102(3), that governs any adjustments of the plaintiffs' awards in the present case.

Since the plaintiffs received $100,000 from the Saccos prior to trial, the plaintiffs' claims against Spencer, the remaining tortfeasor, must be reduced by that amount. ³ The trial court acted properly in reducing the plaintiffs' $58,000 compensatory damages awards to zero.

III.

Greenemeier and Redington further contend that the trial court committed reversible error when it refused to inform the jury of the existence of the settlement between them and the Saccos. ⁴ Although we agree that the better practice is to inform the jury that a settlement has occurred, we do not find reversible error in the present case.

As noted above, the three judges on the panel of the court of appeals who decided the present case reached different conclusions on the issue of whether...