Chuttke v. Fresen, 2017 IL App (2d) 161018

On April 21, 2011, Diana Chuttke was injured when an intoxicated driver, Adam Fresen, crossed lanes and struck her vehicle; Fresen became intoxicated at Cadillac Ranch Texas BBQ & Boot Bar (defendant).
Chuttke sued Fresen (negligence) and the bar under the Illinois Dramshop Act (235 ILCS 5/6-21).
On October 24, 2014, Chuttke settled with Fresen for $50,000 (compensatory damages only); Fresen’s insurer issued the check.
Defendant asserted an affirmative defense seeking a $50,000 setoff against any judgment under the Dramshop Act.
The parties stipulated that a hypothetical jury would award total damages of $61,151.30; the trial court applied a $50,000 setoff and entered judgment for $11,151.30 for Chuttke.
Chuttke appealed, arguing the Dramshop Act’s penal nature and Wessel/Muranyi decisions preclude setoff or indemnity in dramshop cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a dramshop defendant is entitled to a setoff for amounts the plaintiff recovered from an intoxicated third-party tortfeasor	Chuttke: No setoff should be allowed because the Dramshop Act is penal and Wessel/Muranyi limit defenses that reduce dramshop liability	Defendant: Yes; Illinois law (Kurth and its progeny) permits reducing a dramshop judgment by amounts the plaintiff already recovered to avoid double recovery	Court: Affirmed setoff — plaintiff’s recovery against Fresen reduces the dramshop judgment (one-recovery rule applies)
Whether the penal nature of the Act or collateral-source/indemnity doctrines prevents setoff	Chuttke: Penal nature of the Act and related precedent mean dramshop liability should not be reduced; indemnity and collateral-source doctrines bar offset	Defendant: Penal purpose does not convert dramshop recovery into an exception to the one-recovery rule; indemnity differs from setoff and collateral-source is inapplicable here	Court: Penal purpose and Wessel’s indemnity ruling do not bar setoff; collateral-source rule not implicated; Kurth controls

Kurth v. Amee, Inc., 3 Ill. App. 3d 506 (1972) (approves assessing total damages then reducing dramshop verdict by amounts recovered from other tortfeasors)
Wessel v. Carmi Elks Home, Inc., 54 Ill. 2d 127 (1973) (denies indemnity to dramshop defendants to preserve Act’s disciplinary/penal effect)
Thornton v. Garcini, 237 Ill. 2d 100 (2009) (defines setoff and reviews entitlement as a question of law)
Saichek v. Lupa, 204 Ill. 2d 127 (2003) (single, indivisible injury yields single recovery against multiple tortfeasors)
Muranyi v. Turn Verein Frisch-Auf, 308 Ill. App. 3d 213 (1999) (applies collateral-source rule to protect plaintiff’s recoveries under the Act from reduction by defendant)
Patton v. D. Rhodes, Ltd., 166 Ill. App. 3d 809 (1988) (follows Kurth; reduces dramshop award by amount of wrongful-death settlement)