*1 98 dissolution, plaintiff did and order of attach had determined that
resolution county contract, right the and transfer with auditor4 have to terminate the provision plaintiff’s for recordation in attempted makes the effectiveness recorder, county the office of while yet at remand for rescission is issue. We assigning statutory procedure for identifi question. this resolution of permits expressly rec- numbers cation AND REMANDED. REVERSED copy of the of a certified order ordation county recorder the office of the to show Filing legal of the district.5
the new name dissolution, attachment
documentation county with the auditor is
and transfer by auditor’s duties in his
necessitated county as clerk board and
capacity respect property to the tax territory the attachment affected SCHNEIDER, Mark A. of the dissolved district another school Petitioner, Appellant, 275.08, 384.09 district. Minn.Stat. & §§ (1986). Filing 1 the order transfer subd. assigning property dis ring and BUCKMAN, individually and Harold school district to another school dis solved Buckman-Schierts Ambulance d/b/a not, however, require meet the trict does Service, Respondent, or ments of Minn.Stat. 507.34 508.24 § § Buckman, Respondent. Pam (1986) recording filing convey for the or 17, And the order of June 1946 ances. No. C5-87-3. belonging real which the estate District Supreme Court of Minnesota. transferred, “assigned, and award 95 surely conveyance. to District 144 is ed” 23, Dec. 1988. (1986). Minn.Stat. 507.01 § Although appears it that District now produced could have evidence of the the property
transfer of of District 95 to 144, 284, subsequently
District renumbered contract, the time allowed it Indeed, so.
did not do the school district attempt plaintiffs
made no even to address during period
objection day the 120 allowed Therefore, following expi- contract. time, plaintiff
ration of the allotted had the
right, option, terminate con- monies, and have all includ-
tract refunded interest, paid
ing pursuant to contract. plaintiff fact that tried to be uncon-
rescind contract
troverted, attempt- effectiveness sharply disputed;
ed rescission is the plaintiff
school district contends that to rescind that he is
waived doing Because trial
estopped so. (1945) § has 5. Minn.Stat. 122.29 since been 1957, 947, See pealed. Apr. Act ch. art. IX, 9,§ 1957 Minn.Laws 1702. Similar provisions are now found at Minn.Stat. 122.22 (1986 Supp.1987). &
operator of Buckman-Schierts Ambulance
Service, and
(formerly
Pam Laska
Pam
Buckman,
Laska),
daughter
hereinafter
employee,
injuries
sustained while
hospital
transferred
a
bed to an
in
The jury
ambulance cart
returned
special
apportioning
negli
a
verdict
Buckman,
gence
daughter
to his
Laska, and
other
two
tortfeasors
parties
lawsuit,
were not
to the
who
$125,000
awarding
damages.
in
The dis
granted
trict court then
Laska’s motion for
respondeat
dismissal
the doctrine
superior, and held Buckman liable for 100%
appeal,
On
limited Buckman’s
assigned
Schneid
jury.
to him the
Buckman,
er
(Minn.
I injured Mark in hang- Schneider was a 9,May gliding accident on 1976 and taken Hospital Wabasha, in St. Elizabeth’s diagnosed having Minnesota. He a was back, possible ankle and a broken fractures heel fracture. He movement and sen- had in his feet and toes both at the time sation throughout following admission and McGrath, night. Joseph attending Dr. determined, after consultation physician, Clinic, orthopedist Mayo an should to Roch- be transferred Rochester, appel- Moen, R. Kenneth orthopedic surgeons. for care On ester lant. May Am- Buckman-Schierts transported Schneider Service bulance Paul, for Harold Bell, St. C. Robert Hospital Mary’s from St. Elizabeth’s to St. Buckman. Hospital in Rochester. Kelly, P. Brown and Thomas N. Frederic Bins, Rochester, for Pam Buck- & Brown Harold operator owner and man. service, ambulance Las-
ka,1 personnel hospital transfer- hospital red Schneider from his bed to the using ambulance cart the draw sheet OPINION hospital from his bed mattress to lift WAHL, Justice. him During slide onto the cart. the trans- brought Mark Schneider a ac- fer, “snapping” Schneider felt a his back tion Harold owner and by paralysis painful followed burning special of his treatment or nó recollection employed Eliza- had St. was also an RN 1. Laska Hospital night injury. she on its shift. back beth’s stay, duty night she on of Schneider’s was submitted to the Upon arrival at St. case sensation. questions special which included Miguel Dr. Cabanela confirmed verdict Mary’s, concerning his ankles the conduct of Dr. McGrath not move that he could Hospital, the doctor feeling the knees. Schneider St. Elizabeth’s neither below lost the law- surgeries nor the several his back underwent years. At the suit.2 legs over the next two he was able time of the trial walk *3 The court Laska from district dismissed pain in experience to occasional continued suit, determining employee an that as significant pain his left his and back acting of Buckman she was stamina, ankle, and diminished residual scope employment her so under of and problems. and bladder Schneider bowel Buckman’s direction and control as to ren- negligence, Laska for sued Buckman and any der for her acts which him liable that, consequence alleging as a The injuries. contributed to Schneider’s hospital bed made from to ambu- transfer $25,000 already court then credited backboard, he sus- lance cart without Schneider, agreed-upon ceived noted the spinal his injuries further to cord. tained Buckman’s avail- limitations to coverage, able insurance and awarded trial and Buckman en- Before Schneider $100,000. against . judgment Buckman for agreement whereby tered a written The judgment total amount of the is avail- $25,000 accepted the limits of an Schneider to Milwau- able Schneider Buckman’s policy held Buckman with Great policy. kee Mutual Company, his Insurance reserved Central complete pursue rights to full and agreed appeals the court of defendants, litigation against all pending acting scope that Laska was within the and reserved his it she employment, determined that satisfy any judgment by pro- obtained to was from Buck- entitled to indemnification against ceeding Mutual Insur- Milwaukee reasoned, appeals man. The court of how- Company, Buckman held a ance with whom ever, that, pre-trial agreement under the second of insurance. Schneider Schneider, released Buckman was however, levy to or agreed, not executions any which would attach legal pursue remedies Buckman on way indemnity. or The of contribution other than any judgment appeals obtained court of held further that Laska by Buckman’s Milwaukee Mutual not improperly covered served and should been agreed indemnify policy. Having also to Schneider have been a lawsuit.3 Company Great Central Insurance ruled that Schneider could not recover any non-settling damages Buckman for of the verdict from Laska and liability for to recover Buckman was released from party would be entitled appeals negligence, the court of way Buckman of contribution or indem- Laska’s recovery against limited Buckman 35% nity. granted This verdict. court review. jury The Schneider trial $125,000 appeal we will damages injuries for issues address suffered are: Buckman is for both occurred he was trans- whether liable while negli- employee’s his negligence his ferred from the bed ambu- gence respondeat su- negligence the doctrine of lance cart. The attributed under for perior; whether Buckman is liable causing injuries: 25% Joseph to Dr. McGrath and (reallocation statute). Hospital. Although to St. Elizabeth’s (1986), and Las- 3. was served with both his actions 2. Under Minn.Stat. 541.07 complaint on copies ka’s of the summons and against physicians hospitals are held to at her Laska had not lived March parents’ ally Thus, two-year statute Schneid- of limitations. person- home since 1974. She was St. action McGrath and Elizabeth's er’s several weeks served until June brought barred at the time he suit in 1982. run on after of limitations had the statute action her. Schneider's II vicariously man is liable Laska’a gence whether or not she is a The first issue is whether dismissed, unless, properly lawsuit negligence is liable for both his argues, agreement with Schneider employee’s under the doctrine him liability negligence.4 relieves for her respondeat superior. The district court We find that it does not. found, affirmed, appeals injury that at the time The covenant between Buckman’s, employee acting was an Buckman includes an scope employment within the of her Schneider would hold Buckman and Great under his direction and control. Central, insurer, his settling harmless from arising claims of or contribution adopted This has well estab litigation. Having out of the dismissed principle employer lished that an is vicari Laska from the personal lawsuit for lack of ously the torts an jurisdiction, *4 took the of scope committed the course and position that she had a “theoretical” Compa Ismil v. L.H. Sowles employment. trig- of from Buckman which ny, 295 Minn. 120, 354, 123, 203 N.W.2d gered obligation Schneider’s to the Minnesota, credit (1972). In 357 we characterize against of indemnity amount the of liability joint the master and servant as Skow, conclusion, however, v. award. That Kisch miscon- liability. and several 305 import 332, 732, jury’s apportion- ceives the of the 328, (1975). Minn. 233 N.W.2d 734 Further, operation ment of fault of the joint there is and several where one, respondeat superior. of all, any doctrine The liability, plaintiff may a sue joint negligent found that Buckman was may pro number of tortfeasors and Id. separate negligence proximate ceed in that his a actions or one action. cause of argues injury, they Buckman that Laska’s Schneider’s also found negligence negligent was “independent,” present negligence prox- and her a ed no evidence that this was so and imate of injury. cause Schneider’s Under dispute not to that her the respondeat superior, actions were within doctrine of Buck- scope employment the responsibility negligence of not inten man’s for Laska’s employer, depends tional As torts. Laska’s Buck- on whether she was to a agreement part percentage 4. Buckman also asserts in- the that of award which is his of corporates Pierringer the basic of a negligence. elements present causal Id. In the such, and, liability clearly release limits his agreement clearly case the limits Buckman’s percentage to that fault to of attributed liability to the contained in Milwaukee amount $100,000. up him to his insurance In limit Company Policy Mutual Insurance No. 952728 918, Snelgrove, Frey v. 269 N.W.2d 921-22 by providing: (Minn.1978), this court stated basic elements agrees that he nor further neither Covenantor anyone Pierringer require: release proceed shall his behalf seek to (1) settling The release of the * * defendants * levy any out further to or sue execution discharge part from the action and the * * * judg- any Covenantee such equal the cause action that to attribut- may or verdict than be covered settling able to the defendants’ causal policy Mu- an insurance issued Milwaukee gence; Company, being policy tual Insurance num- (2) plain- The reservation of remainder of ber 952728. non-settling tiffs causes action However, typical Pierringer, unlike the defendants; and language agreement releasing contains no Buck- (3) agreement indemnify Plaintiffs set- to fact, specifically man suit. In Schneider from tling defendants from claims of contribu- litigation rights all all defend- retains non-settling parties tion made satisfy any judgment ants. The states: from obtained the non- expressly It is understood that Covenantor settling settling defendants to the extent the rights complete for himself reserves full have been defendants released. Simonett, pending litigation against pursue all The court also referred to Release of therein, Pierringer Joint Use Release Cove- defendants named Tortfeasors: Minnesota, 1, 8,3, added). 3 appear, Wm. Mitchell L.Rev. (emphasis It does nantee. (1977). *5 par- Laska Accordingly, had been deemed that uncollectible therefore, and, ty the action liable to the statute and that because Laska Schneider, no for there to be basis action, is also dismissed from her share employer. her Since indemnification from argues as He uncollectible. has neither an actual nor a theo- defendant, statutorily remaining is retical Finally, bound for 100% agree- provision hold harmless not he that the does contends and Buckman ment between Schneider be- Buckman from reallocation insulate damages not reduce the amount does liability limits to that cause it We hold that recoverable from Buckman. in available under is for the joint way it release Buckman does employee, gence attributed to his liability. respondeat superior. under the doctrine of hand, asserts that On the other determining procedure for uncollectibil Ill approved in ity, as set out the statute and parties assume answer Hosley Armstrong in Cork this court v. question of Buckman is liable whether (Minn.1986) (herein Co., 383 N.W.2d damages is in Minn. is, I) That Hosley after followed. 604.02, 2, the subd. reallocation Stat. seeking § made Schneider never a motion provides: statute did not and the trial court reallocation of uncol- requisite make the determination Upon motion made not later than one Further, relying entered, at 294. lectibility. Id. year judgment after is the court appeals in Hos upon court of decision all or shall determine whether (herein Corp. ley Pittsburgh Corning equitable obligation share of the party’s II), argues is no that there Hosley after from that and shall is uncollectible legal right to collect until the trial reallocate uncollectible amount tort- other judgment enters among parties, (Minn.App. 401 N.W.2d fault, according to feasors. their claimant that, present 1987). out in the points He fault. A spective percentages of case, has been judgment entered is none- liability whose is reallocated any Buckman alone. subject and to theless to contribution practical It is our view that the reallocation there was no need as this case 604.02, subd. procedures of Minn.Stat. was tried Laska to have been a named I, interpreted Hosley implicat in are not as (whether party. Her or not a where, here, there is but one defend ed party) employer’s was included actu- judgment can be or has ant whom negligence, al and vicarious which was cov- jury, in The fact that a its been entered. policy. ered Milwaukee Auto’s If this liability among the apportioning task of situation, were the the case have tortfeasors, has determined various simply been submitted as a lawsuit be- negligence was Buckman’s individual plaintiff tween Schneider and defendant practical consequence is of no of the total Buckman. Because there was no claim of are no other defendants when there contributory negligence against plaintiff, it Here, judgment can be entered. whom gener- could even have been submitted on parties never physician and were al verdict form. negligence of Buck- to this action and the involved, Pierringer When a release is is to him man’s attributable application comparative fault statute respondeat su operation of the doctrine nonparties. should include certain Assume perior. plaintiff there are three tortfeasors and provision hold that the reallocation We Pierringer settles with two of them on inapplicable 2 is settling releases. The two tortfeasors are circumstances of the under the facts and nonparties, they either because settled be- Buck- present case. We hold further that sued, or, sued, they fore if had been man is liable for they were dismissed from the lawsuit awarded to Schneider. The decision of be- judg- is reversed cause of the releases. In this of the district court reinstated. settling nonpar- situation the fault of the ties is submitted to the so that the Reversed, judgment of the district court nonsettling parties shares reinstated. can determined. There can be other *6 KELLEY, J., See, practical consequences e.g., took no too. or decision of this case. Bilco, consideration Payne v. 54 Wis.2d N.W.2d The more fault the named de- SIMONETT, J., specially. concurs tortfeasors, fendant can shift to the absent SIMONETT, (concurring special- Justice pay. the less the named defendant has to ty)- issue, ap- plaintiff’s If fault is also at join opinion I the court’s add a com- but nonparties portionment of some fault to the (Dr. Including nonparties ment. the two may party’s result in the named fault hospital) on the verdict McGrath Here, however, plaintiff’s. less than the form for a determination and allocation release. we do not have a See practical their fault “of no conse- opinion. footnote of the court’s points quence,” opinion as the court’s out. time of As for “defendant” at the thought the trial
trial she was to be under ruling party, properly
court’s served her fault was
hence the ascertainment of Apparently jury.
submitted insurance of own (While suggests Laska
assets. the record coverage hospi- have had plead policy, plaintiff
tal’s did not she was hospital at the time of her
employed
alleged negligence). privy We are not
plaintiff’s strategy, it would seem notes 33 however, 32 and liability that Buckman’s would The effect of a release is to limit "capped" at his limits. joint liability only each tortfeasor to for that 102 liability to on the lawsuit; continuing arises the claimant liability vicarious judgment. relationship and the employment of the out acting scope within the that Laska was fact 2 employment. That course of that Here, the trial court that only for is to Schneider not tortfeasors to was not available two employee of his his own fault but also jury apportioned of the fault whom the however, not, relieve the does as negligence in this action. It therefore to the liability. Had Laska been signed portion, together Laska’s primarily liable she would have been action percentage negligence to Buckman negligence; her victim her own to the held him liable for responsibility to the victim employer’s Buckman’s limited gives rise to cause the act which directly attributable employee would not have action his own did not address v. Laska a defense. Turenne afforded possible reallocation 409, Smith, 9 215 Minn. N.W.2d remaining obligation. v. Buck (1943). Moreover, equally it is well 412-13 man, (Minn.App. 412 N.W.2d employer that an is entitled to settled 1987). employee damages from the cover position the trial is that employer compelled pay because court, specifically finding no recov- employee’s negligence. Lunderberg Dr. ery is to him either available Bierman, 241 Minn. N.W.2d Hospital, and St. McGrath Elizabeth’s