Tatum v. Schering Corp.

CourtSupreme Court of Alabama
Writing for the CourtMADDOX; TORBERT; TORBERT; JONES; HOUSTON; Maddox; Stone; Shores
Citation523 So.2d 1042
Decision Date18 March 1988
PartiesElma TATUM, as administrator of the Estate of Dixie V. Tatum, deceased v. SCHERING CORPORATION. 86-536-CER.

Page 1042

523 So.2d 1042
Elma TATUM, as administrator of the Estate of Dixie V. Tatum, deceased
v.
SCHERING CORPORATION.
86-536-CER.
Supreme Court of Alabama.
March 18, 1988.

Frank M. Wilson of Beasley, Wilson, Traeger, Allen, and Mendelsohn, Montgomery, for appellant.

Jean-Pierre Garnier, Falls Church, Va., and Stanley A. Cash of Huie, Fernambucq & Stewart, Birmingham, for appellee.

MADDOX, Justice.

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama has certified these questions:

"1. Given that only punitive damages are recoverable in an Alabama wrongful death suit and that punitive damages are not apportionable among defendants according to fault, or for any other reason, and that the decedent's personal representative has already been paid for alleged wrongful acts of other defendants which resulted in the death of plaintiff's decedent, what is the effect of pro tanto settlements by two defendants on the trial of the third remaining defendant who is also charged with contributing to the death of the decedent?

"2. Given that the plaintiff has already received $450,000 in pro tanto settlements, is defendant Schering Corporation required to pay damages only if the jury verdict exceeds $450,000?

"3. Is either the defendant or the plaintiff entitled to introduce into evidence for the jury's consideration the fact that the plaintiff has already received $450,000 for the decedent's wrongful death?"

FACTS

Elma Tatum, as administrator of the estate of Dixie V. Tatum, deceased, filed a

Page 1043

wrongful death case in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County, alleging that Mrs. Tatum died as the result of her physician's negligence in failing to follow directions for administering injectable gold in the treatment of Mrs. Tatum's arthritis. Tatum amended the complaint to include claims of negligence and violation of the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine against Schering Corporation and another manufacturer of the ethical drugs used to treat Mrs. Tatum. He alleged that these manufacturers placed on the market a drug that was unreasonably dangerous and that they failed to adequately warn Mrs. Tatum's physician of the dangers involved. Plaintiff Tatum reached a settlement with the physician in the amount of $400,000 and with one of the drug manufacturers in the amount of $50,000. Pro tanto releases were given to these defendants and they were dismissed as parties. This created diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and the remaining defendant, and that remaining defendant, Schering Corporation, removed the case to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.

The certificate from the district court states that the phrasing of the questions is intended as a guide and is not meant to restrict our consideration of the impact of a pro tanto settlement with a tort-feasor in a wrongful death case on the subsequent trial of another alleged tort-feasor.

The certified questions have been briefed extensively by able counsel for both sides, and the Court has heard persuasive oral arguments in support of, and in opposition to, a change in our rule that there can be no apportionment of punitive damages, even when there are joint tort-feasors, regardless of the degree of their individual culpability.

Although highly persuasive arguments can be made that prior cases of this Court were incorrectly decided, this Court has resolutely refused to change the rule of law that punitive damages are not apportionable among joint tort-feasors. In fact, this Court reaffirmed the rule last term in the case of Black Belt Wood Co. v. Sessions, 514 So.2d 1249 (Ala.1987).

There, this Court specifically asked the parties to brief the same issue presented by these certified questions, and in our opinion we wrote, as follows:

"One basic question is presented on this review:

"Should this Court change its longstanding rule that there can be no apportionment of damages among joint tortfeasors, especially in death cases where this Court has concluded that only punitive damages are recoverable?

"Based upon a review of the history of § 6-5-410 [Code 1975] and a review of cases from other jurisdictions, we could change the rule regarding apportionment of punitive damages in wrongful death cases and adopt the majority rule, but we decline to do so."

Black Belt, supra, at 1260.

The first Alabama case dealing with the apportionment issue was Bell v. Riley Bus Lines, 257 Ala. 120, 57 So.2d 612 (1952). That case was a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent was killed when a truck and trailer collided with the bus in which he was riding. We find that case dispositive of the questions here presented, and we quote from it extensively:

"The appellant sued Riley Bus Lines; Riley Bus Lines, a corporation; Isaac Riley and Sarah Riley, doing business as Riley Bus Lines; and Herrington Motor Company and Truck Lines and Wallace Herrington doing business as Herrington Motor Company and Truck Lines, for wrongfully causing the death of her intestate, basing her right to sue on § 123, Title 7, Code of 1940, commonly referred to as 'The Homicide Act.' [Now § 6-5-410.]

"... [the complaint contained this allegation:] 'Plaintiff avers that the said Howard Bell was killed as a proximate result or consequence of the concurrent negligence of Riley Bus Lines, or Riley Bus Lines, a corporation, or Sarah Riley and Isaac Riley doing business as Riley Bus Lines, and Herrington Motor Company and Truck Lines, or Wallace Herrington,

Page 1044

doing business as Herrington Motor Company and Truck Lines, or their respective agents who were then and there acting within the line and scope of their authority, in and about the management or operation of the said Bus and the said automobile truck and trailer.'

" * * *

"The trial was by jury duly demanded by the plaintiff and the jury returned a verdict in the following words and figures:

" 'We the Jury return verdict in favor of Plaintiff and assess damages against Riley Bus Line $5,000.00 and Wallace Herrington $2,500.00.' Judgment was entered on said verdict and Isaac Riley, Saralee Riley and Riley Bus Lines, a partnership composed of Isaac Riley and Saralee Riley, seasonably made motion for a new trial on the grounds that said 'verdict and judgment are contrary to the law of the case; said verdict and judgment are not sustained by the great preponderance of the evidence; said verdict and judgment are arbitrary and prejudicial; said verdict and judgment are contrary to law, in that the complaint claimed damages from Riley Bus Lines and Wallace Herrington for the death of plaintiff's intestate, allegedly caused by the concurring negligence of both said joint defendants, and the verdict and judgment were returned and entered in favor of plaintiff against both said defendants and was not in a lump sum against both defendants but apportioned the damages in the sum of $2500 against Wallace Herrington and in the sum of $5000 against Riley Bus Lines; said verdict being in words and figures as follows: "We the jury return verdict in favor of plaintiff, and assess damages against Riley Bus Lines $5000 Wallace Herrington $2500 /s/ Norman Beverly, foreman." ' [Emphasis added.]

"The motion for new trial also contained many other grounds. The motion was granted by the court and new trial was ordered. Hence this appeal.

"It is strenuously insisted by the appellant and the appellee Wallace Herrington that the jury were authorized to apportion punitive damages between the defendants accordant to the degree of culpability in causing the death of plaintiff's intestate. As authority for their contention they cite decisions from other jurisdictions mostly dealing with common law actions against joint tort-feasors, which were collated in Hall v. McClure, 112 Kan. 752, 212 P. 875, 30 A.L.R. 790 and in Thomson v. Catalina, 205 Cal. 402, 271 P. 198, 62 A.L.R. 239. [Emphasis added.]

" * * *

"It has long been settled in Alabama that damages recoverable in such actions are punitive of the person who wrongfully causes the death. Richmond & Danville R.R. Co. v. Freeman, 97 Ala. 289, 11 So. 800. It has also long been settled that the statute creates a single cause of action unknown to the common law and the personal representative is authorized to sue as an agent of legislative appointment for effecting the declared public policy of preventing homicides. Breed v. Atlanta B. & C.R. Co., 241 Ala. 640, 4 So.2d 315; Also it is settled that the suit under this statute may be prosecuted against joint tort feasors whose wrongful act or negligence proximately causes the death; and they may be sued jointly or separately, but there being but a single cause of action, one recovery and satisfaction is a bar to further prosecution of any other suit on that cause of action. McCoy v. L. & N.R.R. Co., 146 Ala. 333, 40 So. 106. Nevertheless, the personal representative may settle with one tort-feasor and prosecute his action against another, provided he reserves the right in taking the release which releases only the person with whom the settlement is made. Steenhuis v. Holland, 217 Ala. 105, 115 So. 2. [Emphasis in original opinion.]

" * * *

"There is nothing in this statute that authorizes the jury to apportion the damages against tort-feasors sued in this

Page 1045

action. Nor does it recognize degrees of culpability and as applied if the wrongful act or negligence proximately caused the death, the plaintiff is entitled to 'recover such damages as the jury may assess in a court of competent jurisdiction within the State of Alabama.' The well settled trial practice in our courts has been to require a single verdict, fixing a lump sum regardless of the culpability of tort-feasors. City of Birmingham v. Hawkins, 196 Ala. 127, 72 So. 25; Layman v. Hendrix, 1 Ala. 212; City of Tuscaloosa v. Fair, 232 Ala. 129, 167 So. 276; 64 C.J. p. 1084; Bull v. Albright, 254 Ala. 29, 47 So.2d 266.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
52 practice notes
  • Smith v. Schulte
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 18, 1995
    ...v. Travaline, 398 Mass. 582, 499 N.E.2d 1195 (1986). 15 I have disagreed with the majority's reasoning (see Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1047-63 (Ala.1988) (Houston, J., dissenting)); however, because no constitutional phantom, but only statutory construction, is involved, I no ......
  • Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 30, 1988
    ...of its civil character. Although damages recoverable in an Alabama wrongful death action are punitive in nature (Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1988)), the wrongful death statute, first passed by the Alabama legislature in 1872, has been historically held to be nonpenal in "La......
  • Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 27, 1991
    ...compensate the injured party for all damage proximately caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence; Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1048 (Ala.1988) (Houston, J., dissenting). However, as a Justice, it is not within my power to determine the propriety, the wisdom, the neces......
  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, OWENS-CORNING
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • August 25, 1998
    ...is entitled to credit settlements from settling defendants against its liability for punitive damages. See Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Ala.1988). The trial court also reduced all the compensatory awards to reflect the settlement Under the trial court's judgment, the plain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
52 cases
  • Smith v. Schulte
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • August 18, 1995
    ...v. Travaline, 398 Mass. 582, 499 N.E.2d 1195 (1986). 15 I have disagreed with the majority's reasoning (see Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1047-63 (Ala.1988) (Houston, J., dissenting)); however, because no constitutional phantom, but only statutory construction, is involved, I no ......
  • Industrial Chemical & Fiberglass Corp. v. Chandler
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 30, 1988
    ...of its civil character. Although damages recoverable in an Alabama wrongful death action are punitive in nature (Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042 (Ala.1988)), the wrongful death statute, first passed by the Alabama legislature in 1872, has been historically held to be nonpenal in "La......
  • Moore v. Mobile Infirmary Ass'n
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Alabama
    • September 27, 1991
    ...compensate the injured party for all damage proximately caused by the wrongful act, omission, or negligence; Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1048 (Ala.1988) (Houston, J., dissenting). However, as a Justice, it is not within my power to determine the propriety, the wisdom, the neces......
  • Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Malone, OWENS-CORNING
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • August 25, 1998
    ...is entitled to credit settlements from settling defendants against its liability for punitive damages. See Tatum v. Schering Corp., 523 So.2d 1042, 1045 (Ala.1988). The trial court also reduced all the compensatory awards to reflect the settlement Under the trial court's judgment, the plain......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT