*1 G47 DIGGINS, Donald & d/b/a/ Robert Concrete, Appellants, Black, Sis- Craig Wm. R. and Rod Sisson JACKSON, Appellee.
Lance Knutson, P.C., Appel- Anchorage, for son & No. S-11141. lants. Alaska. Supreme Court Sullivan, Wade, Kelly Kelly, & C. Marion Aug.10,2007. Appellee. Anchorage, for BRYNER, Justice, Chief Before: FABE, EASTAUGH, MATTHEWS, and CARPENETI, Justices.
OPINION PER CURIAM. Lance Jackson August
On path in Anchor- bicycle on a bike riding his repairs, a section of ongoing age. been removed. pavement had path's the bike bike, gap, flipped his into the rode Jackson his neck. and fractured involved three contractors sued Jackson Inc., Moseley Enterprises, repair work: Alaska, Inc., Warning Lites of Moseley and with He settled Concrete. trial, receiving a total Warning Lites Moseley and ($91,190.60 from Lites). Jackson Warning jury's Diggins. The to trial ceeded damages totaled that Jackson's verdict found Moseley, and Jack $94,948.40, Diggins, causing those negligently had acted son was not Warning Lites damages, but that The verdict for the accident. responsible Dig- to percent of the ten allocated Moseley, seventy per twenty percent to gins, Jackson, Warning Lites.1 and none cent Diggins Hable Jack- nominally left This $9,494.34-ten percent Jackson's son Diggins asked the But damages. total Philip R. Vol- court, Judge Superior Court land, to him settlement already paid
amounts Lites; since Warning Moseley and exceeded payments trial settlement jury, by the awarded damages as Moseley, parties, responsible other verdict, 1. Under $94,943.40. $28,483.00-thirty percent of dam- seventy percent of his own totaled sponsible for from the two recover ages, amount he could *2 648 offset would have left no further repealed by legislature year, it in
Diggins
pay.
The
Diggins's
court denied
language
cluded
directing courts to enter
request
requiring
entered
judgment "subject
to a reduction under AS
$9,494.34
plus
inter-
provision
09.16.040"-a
repealed
otherwise
est, fees, and costs.
by the 1988initiative.8
appeal,
filed this
challenging the
only
The
salient difference between the
superior
declining
court's order
to offset the
situation in the case now before us and the
prior
payments.
settlement
hearing
After
cireumstances at issue in Petrolane is that
argument,
oral
stayed
we
Diggins's appeal
09.17.080(c)'s
AS
"subject to reduction" lan
pending
ruling
our
already
an
submitted
guage
1993,
was still in effect in
when the
appeal involving analogous facts and a simi
occurred,
accident in Petrolane
whereas the
issue,
lar
Inc. v. Robles2 Our
language
repealed
had been
by the time
opinion in Petrolane has now decided the
injury
occurred in 1999. But as we
point.
implicitly
recognized in
asked,
In
portionate-share
Petrolane we
"Is a non-settling
adopted
rule we
there does
defendant
tortfeasor entitled
against
.080(c)'s
hinge
not
on
repeal;
subsection
in
liability
plaintiff
deed,
his
matter,
practical
the amount of a
as a
the fact that the
settlement
plaintiff
provision
between the
repealed
and a
was
acci
ndant?"3
considering
After
only
our
dent can
favor the conclusion that Petro-
defe
prior
lame
apply
reviewing
must also
case law and
history
here.9
several-liability
Alaska's
regime adopted al
authority
cites no
and raises no
most
two
ago,
that,
decades
we observed
arguments that we did not consider in Petro-
pure
"since the
liability
several
regime enact
lame; accordingly, we adhere
approach
to the
ed
initiative in
repealed
1988
express
adopted
we
there and reiterate the basis for
availability of full offsets and because a de
our ruling: "Proportionate share offsets are
fendant's
under
the 1988 law was
logical
liability,
incidents of several
and in
by comparative fault,
limited
there is no rea
recognizing them
simply adopt
we
the most
son to
non-settling
allow a
defendant
10
efficient well-accepted
solution."
offset under the 1988 law."4 We thus
Because
applies
here and
"join[ed]
Supreme Court,
the United States
Diggins's
cludes
offset,
request for a full
we
the majority
jurisdictions
of other
and the
superior
AFFIRM the
judgment.
court's
(Third)
Restatement
of Torts in adopting the
5
proportionate
rule,"
share
summarizing that
MATTHEWS, Justice, with whom
rule as follows: "Under
approach
this
non-
EASTAUGH, Justice, joins, concurring.
settling defendants are entitled to offset the
plaintiff's damages
proportion
to settling
In this
plaintiff
case the
settled claims
comparative fault.6 We found
parties'
no with
two defendants for
The
inconsistency between
approach
this
and our
subsequent
verdict
the remaining
prior case
rejected
law.7 And
separate
we
defendant
plaintiff's
determined that
argument
that a full offset
required
be
$28,500.
recoverable loss was
because,
09.17.080(c)
fore 1997
until AS
plaintiff
settlements
already
re
(Alaska
2. Petrolane
8.
Id. at 1023.
Inc. v. Robles,
3.
Id. at 1016.
ject
provision
.080(c)
to"
repealed
of subsection
in 1997
language"
4.
Id. at
was "critical
1020.
compelling
provision's
a full offset until that
(footnotes omitted)
5.
Id. at 1020-21
(citing
peal).
McDermott,
649 double recoveries I believe what he than times more three over ceived and that the public policy to be bad continues case is in this question The to. is entitled permit- are now double recoveries fact that an additional he obtain whether consequence of the tort an unintended ted is remaining defendant. Nonetheless, this movement. reform question opinion answers Today's If is to be us. there Petrolane leaves where recently *3 It relies affirmative. the through legisla- change, it must come Robles.2 case of decided process. tive (effective 09.17.080(d) that AS held Petrolane 1989) settle offsetting prior precluded in is an offset judgment where from a ments recovery. Justice a double to avoid
needed in in Petrolane a dissent
Eastaugh wrote post took the The dissent joined.3 I
which wrong as a opinion was the court's
tion that construction, precedent, statutory
matter policy. SPENCER, Appellant, I. Komson of this a decision stands as now effect. precedential it has and as such court Alaska, Appellee. holding that it in right Today's opinion STATE A-9024. No. case. Based of this the outcome controls join in the I stare decisis principle of Appeals of Alaska. Court of even opinion reaches today's that result I convinced though remain 29, 2007. June wrongly decided.4 long-standing stand the matters now As has been recoveries prohibiting double
policy all received who have Plaintiffs
eliminated. by a receive as determined they should (and triplicate) duplicate
jury can receive support of reasons cited
payments. The risk of bear the plaintiffs policy-that and that too little for recovery facilitates settlement-seem
double has al- Settling for too little
insubstantial. They might plaintiffs. for
ways been a risk remaining defen-
lose might prove to
dant, aor favorable occur Settlements uncollectable.
be com- that remain calculations risk-reward of a possibility without
plex, with or of these reasons recovery. Neither
double underlying reason in force the
approaches the co- recoveries: against double policy require a law should not of the
ercive force compen- a loss for which
party paid. already been
sation (Alaska 2007). an incorrect P.3d 1014 statutory interpretation. override 2. 154 justification cases for in such less There is thus at 1028. rulings. William See own its court to overturn Precedents, Statutory 76 Geo. Eskridge, Overruling strongest cases involv at its decisis is 4. Stare L.J. 1361 cases interpretation Unlike ing of statutes. constitution, involving