Eysoldt v. Proscan Imaging, 2011 Ohio 6740

Eysoldt v. Proscan Imaging, Go Daddy.com, Inc. appealed to the First Appellate District of Ohio, Hamilton County.
Jury found Go Daddy liable for invasion of privacy and conversion, awarding compensatory damages to each Eysoldt.
Trial court denied Go Daddy’s motions and entered judgment for the plaintiffs: Jeff $50,000, Jill $10,000, Mark $10,000.
Go Daddy appealed the denial of partial satisfaction of judgment after other defendants settled with the Eysoldts.
This court previously affirmed the trial court in separate interlocutory appeals; the Ohio Supreme Court denied discretionary review.
The issue on appeal is whether Go Daddy could obtain a partial satisfaction/redution of the judgment by set-off against payments to plaintiffs from other tortfeasors.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the judgment can be reduced by payments from other defendants	Eysoldt argues no set-off; no right to double recovery for intentional torts	Go Daddy argues RC 2307.28 allows reduction by sums paid by others	Denied; no set-off under RC 2307.25; judgment not reduced

Kritzwiser v. Bonetzky, 2008-Ohio-4952 (3rd Dist. 2008) (set-off limitations for intentional torts; no contribution rights)
Spalla v. Fransen, 2010-Ohio-3461 (8th Dist. 2010) (release or covenant not to sue reduces claims against other tortfeasors)
Jones v. VIP Dev. Co., 472 N.E.2d 1046 (Ohio 1984) (intent to bring about a forbidden invasion—not merely hostile intent)
Merchants Bank and Trust Co. v. Five Star Fin. Corp., 2011-Ohio-2476 (1st Dist. 2011) (no right of contribution for intentional torts; separate treatment of intentional tortfeasors)
Klosterman v. Fussner, 651 N.E.2d 64 (1994) (discusses treatment of intentional vs. negligent tortfeasors in damages)
Condit v. Condit, 2010-Ohio-5202 (8th Dist. 2010) (reaffirmed standards for error due to misapplication of law)
Hall v. Gill, 108 Ohio App.3d 196 (1995) (references on error preservation and standard of review)