Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd.
| Decision Date | 16 February 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 89-0366-CIV.,89-0366-CIV. |
| Citation | 731 F. Supp. 1557 |
| Parties | Timothy WILLIAMS, and Lori Williams, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. ARAI HIROTAKE, LTD., and Arai Helmet (U.S.A.), Ltd., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
Marilyn Sher, Chonin & Sher, Coral Gables, Fla., and Donald G. Grove, Keck, Mahin & Cate, Washington, D.C., for plaintiffs.
Ricardo J. Cata, Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker, Miami, Fla., for defendants.
SUMMARY FINAL JUDGMENT
This matter is before the court on the parties' various motions: defendants' motion to compel the appearance at deposition of John Bishop, filed July 19, 1989; plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding defendants' affirmative defense number 11, filed August 15, 1989; defendants' motion for summary judgment, filed September 13, 1989; plaintiffs' motion to shorten the time for document production and to enlarge the discovery period, if defendants' summary judgment is denied, filed September 15, 1989; defendants' motion for a medical examination of plaintiff Timothy Williams, filed September 20, 1989; and defendants' motion to strike plaintiffs' reply supporting their motion for summary judgment, filed September 22, 1989. The court heard argument on these motions on October 12, 1989.
For the reasons discussed below, defendants' motion for summary judgment is granted, and summary final judgment is entered in favor of defendants and against plaintiffs. All other outstanding motions are denied as moot.
Timothy Williams was injured in November 1987, when a vehicle collided with the motorcycle he was operating in Dade County, Florida. Williams and his wife Lori, plaintiffs in this action, filed an action in Florida state court against the driver and the owner of the vehicle. Plaintiffs did not name as defendants the defendants in this case (hereinafter "the Arai defendants"), who manufactured the helmet that Timothy Williams was wearing when the accident occurred. Nevertheless, the state court defendants named the Arai defendants as third-party defendants and sought contribution under section 768.31 of the Florida Statutes.
The plaintiffs' complaint in state court sought damages for Timothy Williams' "bodily injury." Eventually, the state court defendants gave plaintiffs the option of choosing an offer of settlement or an offer of judgment. Plaintiffs chose the latter, executing a satisfaction of judgment with the state court defendants and receiving a judgment of $1.5 million. The satisfaction of judgment was unqualified. It contained no language limiting the injuries for which plaintiffs were compensated or the claims that were satisfied. It did not preserve a cause of action against any other defendants. After execution of the satisfaction of judgment, the state court defendants/third-party plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Arai defendants with prejudice.
Thereafter, plaintiffs filed this action in state court against the Arai defendants, again seeking damages for Timothy Williams' injuries. The Arai defendants removed this action to federal court on the basis of diversity of citizenship. The Arai defendants now seek summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs' unqualified release of the state court defendants released them as well. Plaintiffs oppose this motion, arguing that their release was merely a pro tanto release of the named tortfeasors and not of any other parties allegedly responsible for plaintiffs' damages. The parties also have filed a number of other motions.
The following analysis considers only the Arai defendants' motion for summary judgment, because the court's decision makes that motion dispositive of this case.
The court notes at the outset that this diversity case involves seemingly contradictory Florida decisions, which fail to consider what appear to be relevant state statutory provisions. Despite the lack of clarity in Florida law, the court cannot decline to exercise its diversity jurisdiction in this matter. Stool v. J.C. Penney Co., 404 F.2d 562, 563 (5th Cir.1968).1 In addition, this court cannot certify a question of Florida law directly to the Florida Supreme Court, although a procedure exists for such certification from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals to the Florida Supreme Court. See Rule 9.150, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Under the principle of Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 78, 58 S.Ct. 817, 822, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938), this court must discern how the Florida Supreme Court would decide this case if the issue were before it. Towne Realty, Inc. v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 854 F.2d 1264, 1267-69 (11th Cir.1988). Accordingly, the court begins "the somewhat difficult task" of predicting what a Florida court would do in a similar situation. Jones v. Continental Ins. Co., 670 F.Supp. 937, 939 (S.D.Fla. 1987). In determining how a Florida court would rule, the court may use "all reliable resources, including decisions of intermediate state courts, policies underlying the applicable legal principles, doctrinal trends indicated by those policies, treatises, restatements, and law review articles." Id. at 940. Florida appellate decisions on Florida law bind the court, unless a strong showing is made that the Florida Supreme Court would decide the issue differently. Maseda v. Honda Motor Co., Ltd., 861 F.2d 1248, 1257 n. 14 (11th Cir.1988).
Under Florida common law, it is clear that an initial tortfeasor is liable for all injuries the plaintiff sustains as a result of the first tort. Stuart v. Hertz Corp., 351 So.2d 703, 706-07 (Fla.1977); Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d 673, 675 and n. 1 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989) (). Courts adhere to this common law rule, whether in cases of joint and several liability or independent liability. Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d at 675. The legal issue in this case is whether a plaintiff's unqualified, general release of a first tortfeasor terminates or limits the liability of other alleged tortfeasors.
Despite some contradictions, the weight of authority interpreting Florida law holds that a plaintiff's release of the first tortfeasor releases all other tortfeasors, unless the release expressly provides otherwise. See, e.g., McCutcheon v. Hertz Corporation, 463 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Fla. 4th DCA 1985), review denied, 476 So.2d 674 (Fla.1985) (). Unless a cause of action expressly was preserved, the McCutcheon line of cases establishes a legal presumption that the plaintiff recovered from the initial tortfeasor for all injuries caused by those jointly or subsequently negligent and thus is barred from asserting the same cause of action against subsequent tortfeasors. Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), review denied, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla.1989). The Eleventh Circuit has recognized the rule of McCutcheon as controlling when federal courts apply Florida law. Tyler v. Ahmed, 813 F.2d 1114, 1115-18 (11th Cir. 1987).2
The determinative factor in deciding the effect of a release of one tortfeasor is whether the release documents preserved the plaintiff's right to proceed against defendants not specifically sued. Rucks v. Pushman, 541 So.2d 673, 676 (Fla. 5th DCA 1989), review denied, 549 So.2d 1014 (Fla.1989); see also Walker v. U-Haul Company, Inc., 300 So.2d 289, 291 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974), cert. denied, 314 So.2d 588 (Fla.1975) (). A plaintiff entering into a settlement agreement with an initial tortfeasor should carefully draft that agreement, to clarify whether the settlement includes compensation for injuries caused by subsequent negligence and whether causes of action are reserved. Rucks, 541 So.2d at 675.
Nothing in McCutcheon and its progeny limits their application to situations involving subsequent medical malpractice, as plaintiffs argue. Accordingly, plaintiffs' reliance on Mathis v. Virgin, 167 So.2d 897 (Fla. 3d DCA 1964), cert. denied, 174 So.2d 30 (Fla.1965), for the proposition that a general release only releases pro tanto the joint tortfeasor, is misplaced. The holding in Mathis appears to have been discredited by later decisions such as McCutcheon. Plaintiffs did not accept an offer of settlement, as did the plaintiff in Mathis, but an offer of judgment. See Fla.Stat. § 45.061 (1987) (offers of settlement); § 768.79 (1986) (offers of judgment).
Similarly, this case is distinguishable from that of Knutson v. Life Care Retirement Communities, Inc., 493 So.2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1986), review denied, 501 So.2d 1282 (Fla.1986), on which plaintiffs rely to argue that the McCutcheon rule is inapplicable to the facts of this case. While Knutson is superficially inconsistent with McCutcheon, the cases can be reconciled readily.
In Knutson, the plaintiff sustained head injuries in an automobile accident and later suffered hip injuries when she fell at a nursing home where she was convalescing. The plaintiff eventually settled with the automobile driver and executed a release of him and his insurance carrier. Later, she filed a complaint against the nursing home, seeking damages for her hip injuries. The trial court in Knutson granted summary judgment for the nursing home under McCutcheon.
The appellate court reversed, ruling that summary judgment was inappropriate because a material question of fact existed as to whether the plaintiff's claims against the subsequent tortfeasor were included within the claims asserted against the initial tortfeasor who obtained a release. Id. at 1135. Accordingly, the court in Knutson distinguished its case from McCutcheon, in which the plaintiff's claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barnett Bank of South Florida v. FDIC
... ... "predicting what a Florida court would do in a similar situation." Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd., 731 F.Supp. 1557, 1559 (S.D.Fla. 1990), citing ... ...
- Williams v. Arai Hirotake, Ltd.