Luther v. Danner
Decision Date | 28 January 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 79,769.,79,769. |
Citation | 268 Kan. 343,995 P.2d 865 |
Parties | JACQUELIN LUTHER, individually, and as the parent and natural guardian of FLOYD M. LUTHER, JR., and ROBERT JOHN LUTHER; and KATHLEEN WOHLGEMUTH, as the Administratrix of the Estate of FLOYD LUTHER, SR., Deceased, Appellants, v. PAUL L. DANNER, JR., and SERVICE PRINTING, INC., Appellees. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Alvin D. Herrington, of McDonald, Tinker, Skaer, Quinn & Herrington, P.A., of Wichita, argued the cause, and Dustin L. DeVaughn and Shari R.L. Willis of the same firm, were with him on the briefs for appellants.
Joel W. Riggs, of McMaster & McMaster, of Wichita, argued the cause and was on the briefs for appellees.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Floyd Luther, Sr., was killed when his motorcycle collided with a truck driven by Paul Danner, Jr., for Service Printing, Inc. Floyd Luther, Jr., was also on the motorcycle and was injured in the collision.
Jacquelin Luther executed a release on behalf of Floyd Jr. in settlement of her minor son's personal injury lawsuit against Danner, Service Printing, and his father's estate. On the ground that the release foreclosed any other claims against Danner and Service Printing, the district court entered summary judgment in their favor on Jacquelin's wrongful death action, her minor sons' claims, and the estate's survival action. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision on Jacquelin's wrongful death action and reversed on the claims of the Luther children and the estate's survival action. Luther v. Danner, No. 79,769 (unpublished opinion filed May 7, 1999.) Jacquelin's petition for review was granted. The petition for review of Danner and Service Printing was denied.
The sole issue we must resolve on appeal is whether the general release executed by Jacquelin Luther releases her claims against Danner and Service Printing. The relevant part of the release reads as follows:
The district court's journal entry of summary judgment shows that the release was drafted by Dairyland Insurance Company, Floyd Sr.'s liability carrier. The settlement transaction it memorialized was negotiated by Floyd Jr.'s attorney and Floyd Sr.'s estate and insurer, with no participation by Danner, Service Printing, or their representative. For his part of the negotiated settlement, Floyd Jr. dismissed his cause of action against his father's estate with prejudice. No other claims were voluntarily dismissed by Jacquelin, her sons, or the estate. Upon concluding that the release clearly and unambiguously released Danner and Service Printing from all claims by Jacquelin, her sons, or the estate, the district court granted summary judgment for Danner and Service Printing on all claims.
The Court of Appeals concluded that "so far as Jacquelin Luther is concerned, in her individual capacity, the release is plain, unambiguous, and binding as to all tortfeasors." The Court of Appeals applied the rules of contract construction in interpreting the release document. Hence, it placed the burden on Danner and Service Printing, as third parties to the release, to prove that the parties named in the release, Jacquelin, Floyd Sr.'s estate, and Dairyland Insurance, intended to release Danner and Service Printing. The Court of Appeals found the intent of the parties to be apparent in the plain language of the release. Accordingly, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's refusing to consider parol or extrinsic evidence for the purpose of ascertaining intent. In support of its rationale, the Court of Appeals cited In re Cherokee County Revenue Bonds, 262 Kan. 941, 953, 946 P.2d 83 (1997); Fieser v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc., 212 Kan. 35, 42, 510 P.2d 145 (1973); Eggleston v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 21 Kan. App.2d 573, 574, 906 P.2d 661, rev. denied 257 Kan. 1091 (1995); and a Missouri case.
In In re Cherokee County Revenue Bonds, the question before the court involved construing the language of a trust indenture. The court recited the well-known rules of construction that prohibit courts from analyzing contract provisions in isolation and require courts to refrain from interpretation where the language is unambiguous. 262 Kan. at 953. Fieser was decided before comparative negligence became law in Kansas. The court disapproved the rule that previously had insulated successive tortfeasors from liability where the injured party had given a general release to the original tortfeasor. The only Kansas case cited that actually supports the Court of Appeals' rationale and conclusion is Eggleston. Sharon Eggleston's husband died in an automobile collision. She settled with one of the drivers and signed a release that released him and all others from all Eggleston's current and future claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed summary judgment in favor of all others involved in the collision on the ground that "the release is clear and all encompassing." 21 Kan. App.2d at 574.
In justifying the somewhat harsh result, the Court of Appeals revealed that its consideration extended to factors not on the face of the release document: (Emphasis added.) 21 Kan. App.2d at 574. In relying on Jukes, the Court of Appeals harked back to the time when Kansas courts applied the concept of joint and several liability. In 1974, the legislature enacted a comparative negligence statute, K.S.A. 60-258a.
Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 439, Syl. ¶ 6, 618 P.2d 788 (1980).
The "all or nothing" rule of common-law contributory negligence was softened by institution of comparative negligence concepts. 228 Kan. at 450.
A review of current cases from other states' courts reveals that in the construction of general releases, too, the "all or nothing" rule has given way to more tempered approaches. The Supreme Court of New Mexico made a study of general release cases and identified three categories—"flat bar rule," "intent rule," and "specific identity rule" cases. Hansen v. Ford Motor Co., 120 N.M. 203, 207, 900 P.2d 952 (1995). The three were described as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liab.
...negligence actions."). 277. Bridges v. Bentley, 244 Kan. 434, 437, 769 P.2d 635 (1989) (citation omitted). Accord Luther v. Danner, 268 Kan. 343, 346, 995 P.2d 865 (2000). 278. See id. ("[T]his court has unequivocally stated `no change' in common law duties occurred as a result of the enact......
-
Spiess v. Meyers
...apply a rebuttable presumption that the parties to the agreement did not intend to release the unnamed party. Luther v. Danner, 268 Kan. 343, 352, 995 P.2d 865, 871 (2000); see also Shinkle v. Union City Body Co., 94 F.R.D. 631, 634 (D.Kan.1982) (citing Kennedy v. City of Sawyer, 228 Kan. 4......
-
Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Skolnick
...or specifically identified in the release.” Moore v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 299 Ark. 232, 773 S.W.2d 78, 80 (1989) ; Luther v. Danner, 268 Kan. 343, 995 P.2d 865, 868 (2000) ; Dobson v. Citizens Gas & Coke Utility, 634 N.E.2d 1343, 1344–45 (1994). “Most ‘flat bar’ courts hold that, because a r......
-
Cobb v. Corbett, No. 91,395 (KS 8/20/2004)
...recovery from a principal based on vicarious liability after the injured party has released the agent. Cobb cites to Luther v. Danner, 268 Kan. 343, 995 P.2d 865 (2000), where our Supreme Court discussed the rule to be applied in Kansas when a release is executed in favor of one or more par......