Webb v. Toncray

• Decision Date: 03 December 1981
• Docket Number: No. 81-173,81-173
• Citation: 102 Ill.App.3d 78,57 Ill.Dec. 757,429 N.E.2d 874
• Parties: , 57 Ill.Dec. 757 Alvin WEBB, a minor by Barbara Johnson, his mother and next best friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael TONCRAY, Defendant, and Paul Meeks, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael TONCRAY, Plaintiff, v. Paul MEEKS, Defendant.
• Court: United States Appellate Court of Illinois

Page 874

429 N.E.2d 874

102 Ill.App.3d 78, 57 Ill.Dec. 757

Alvin WEBB, a minor by Barbara Johnson, his mother and next

best friend, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael TONCRAY, Defendant, and Paul Meeks, Defendant-Appellee, and Michael TONCRAY, Plaintiff, v. Paul MEEKS, Defendant.

No. 81-173.

Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District.

Dec. 3, 1981.

Michael J. Goldstein, Chicago, for plaintiff-appellant.

John J. McGarry, Stefanich, McGarry & Wols, Ltd., Joliet, for defendant-appellee.

BARRY, Justice.

On August 1, 1977, plaintiff Alvin Webb brought suit in the circuit court of Will County against Paul Meeks, driver of an automobile in which Webb was a passenger, and Michael Toncray, driver of another automobile, for personal injuries sustained by Webb in a collision of August 12, 1975. A separate action was brought by Toncray against Meeks for Toncray's injuries in the accident. Prior to the commencement of the jury trial, Toncray entered into a platform loan agreement with Webb, and Toncray was dismissed as a party defendant. The agreement provided that Webb would grant Toncray a covenant not to sue in exchange for Toncray's loan of $9,000, which loan was to be repaid only to the extent that Webb's recovery from Meeks exceeded $20,000.

With full knowledge of the agreement, the trial court ruled that no evidence relative to the loan agreement would be admitted at trial. The case proceeded to trial consolidated with the case of Toncray versus Meeks. At the completion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Webb and awarded $6,000 in damages against Meeks. The jury further found for defendant Meeks in the cause brought by Toncray. Meeks thereafter filed a motion in the trial court requesting that the $9,000 paid to Webb by Toncray pursuant to the loan agreement be set off against the $6,000 jury award. Meeks' motion was granted, and Webb has appealed this ruling.

On appeal, Webb challenges the trial court's ruling on two bases; first, that it is contrary to public policy, and second, that a retrial of the issue of damages should be granted so that the jury could be instructed on the existence of the loan agreement and its effect on a jury verdict.

We will first consider whether the trial court's ruling on the motion for setoff, as applied to the facts of the case before us, is contrary to the public policy of Illinois. The Illinois Supreme Court has recently allowed setoffs in two cases involving loan agreements similar to the agreement in the instant case-Palmer v. Avco Distributing Corp. (1980), 82 Ill.2d 211, 45 Ill.Dec. 377, 412 N.E.2d 959, and Popovich v. Ram Pipe and Supply Co., Inc. (1980), 82 Ill.2d 203, 45 Ill.Dec. 167, 412 N.E.2d 518. In these companion cases, the court specifically reaffirmed the policy in Illinois against double recoveries. (Palmer, 82 Ill.2d at 223, 45 Ill.Dec. at 383, 412 N.E.2d at 965; Popovich, 82 Ill.2d at 208, 45 Ill.Dec. at 170, 412 N.E.2d at 521.) Against this policy, the court weighed the policy of construing agreements according to the intentions of the contracting parties. (Popovich, 82 Ill.2d at 208, 45 Ill.Dec. at 169, 412 N.E.2d at 520.) A third policy which the court considered is that of protecting the financial interest of nonsettling parties. (Palmer, 82 Ill.2d at 224, 45 Ill.Dec. at 384, 412 N.E.2d at 966.) In the instant case, plaintiff urges us to consider a fourth policy of encouraging out of court settlements. See Reese v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy RR. (1973), 55 Ill.2d 356, 362-363, 303 N.E.2d 382, 386.

Plaintiff asserts that our consideration of these policies could result in a denial of setoff in the present case inasmuch as the Supreme Court in Palmer remarked in obiter dicta,

"(The court is) aware of those cases in which amounts of money received pursuant to settlements exceeded jury verdicts subsequently entered against joint tortfeasors. (See, e.g., DeLude v. Rimek (1953), 351 Ill.App. 466, 474-75, 115 N.E.2d 561; Price v. Wabash R.R. Co. (1961), 30 Ill.App.2d 115, 117-18, 174 N.E.2d 5.) A loan agreement for an amount exceeding a jury verdict would present a question different from the one we decide today." 82 Ill.2d at 225, 45 Ill.Dec. at 384, 412 N.E.2d at 966.

We are aware of no Illinois cases, decided since the Supreme Court first sanctioned the use of loan agreements (Reese v. Chicago, Burlington), which have addressed the question left "unanswered" in Palmer. Nevertheless, upon due consideration of Illinois public policy, we have concluded that the mere fact that Meeks, the non-settling defendant, has been found liable by the triers of fact and that setoff results in a zero dollar judgment against him does not dictate a result contrary to that reached in Palmer and Popovich. Initially, we note that the theory of recovery in a negligence suit, such as the personal injury cause of action in the present case, is that of compensation to the plaintiff-not punishment to the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff's argument that setoff improperly allows defendant Meeks to "escape" paying damages is unconvincing. Next, we find that the overriding policy upon which Palmer and Popovich were decided is that double recoveries are not permitted in Illinois. The countervailing policies which plaintiff advances are secondary to the policy against double recoveries. In the present case, the jury determined that the plaintiff is entitled to recover $6,000 for his injuries. Toncray was willing to pay $9,000 to avoid further exposure that could potentially result were he to remain a party defendant in this cause. The fact that Toncray may have over-estimated the amount of damages recoverable by Webb should have no effect on Meeks' right, as a non-settling defendant, to setoff.

Furthermore, the record on appeal, consisting merely of the common law record and a transcript of the hearing on defendant's motion for setoff, does not support the plaintiff's argument that the jury, in determining damages for Webb, was confused by Toncray's participation in the trial. The jurors were properly instructed that they were to determine the amount of damages which would compensate the plaintiff once the jury found for the plaintiff on the issue of liability. The amount of damages thus determined-$6,000-appears to be clearly within the range of reasonable compensation based on evidence of plaintiff's injuries as it appears in the record on appeal. It would be pure speculation to find, as plaintiff suggests, that the jury assumed that the damage determination should represent only that portion of total damages for which defendant Meeks was responsible.

We find no basis in law or fact for reversing the trial court's determination that setoff is required in this case. We hold, therefore, that the trial court properly allowed defendant Meeks' motion for setoff. As a result of our ruling, plaintiff retains one and one-half times the amount of damages which the jury determined was sufficient to compensate him for his injuries. Plaintiff Webb will not be heard to complain about the measure of damages recovered by him merely because Meeks is benefited by the voluntary payment of Toncray.

Having found no basis for reversing the trial court's ruling on defendant's motion for setoff, we briefly address the final argument raised by plaintiff on appeal. Plaintiff urges that we remand this cause for a new trial on the issue of damages. In support of this argument, plaintiff refers to the Supreme Court's disposition in Palmer. In Palmer, evidence of the terms of the loan agreement was presented to the jury. This procedure is proper when such evidence is relevant to the motive or credibility of a witness, who knows of the existence of a loan agreement. See Palmer, 82 Ill.2d at 226, 45 Ill.Dec. at 384, 412 N.E.2d at 966 (citing Reese).

The Palmer court observed that where evidence of the terms of the agreement is admitted, then "(f)ull revelation * * * seems preferable to permitting jury speculation about an agreement's precise terms." (82 Ill.2d at 226, 45 Ill.Dec. at 385, 412 N.E.2d at 967.) Although the jury in Palmer was adequately informed of the terms of the agreement, the Supreme Court remanded the case for a new trial on damages because the jury was not thereafter instructed ...