*1 thеreby directed to retain jurisdiction; sought the matters to be considered here petition rehearing proper- can be
ly dealt with.
678 P.2d 33 SCHNEIDER,
Larry L.
Plaintiff-Appellant, MERCHANT, INC.,
FARMERS an Idaho
corporation, Defendant-Respondent.
No. 14390.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Dec. 1983.
Rehearing Denied March *2 August
the Industrial Commission on 19, 1979, April On Schneider filed a suit Farmers, alleging that as a result supply Farmers’ failure to guard a chain protective grain and other devices on the auger, plaintiff’s left thumb was severed trial, his hand. Prior from Farmers’ insurer, Aetna Company, Insurance en- Cantrill, Mercer, David W. and Hollis A. agreement into an tered with Nelson’s in- Skinner, Boise, plaintiff-ap- Cantrill & surer, Argonaut Company. Insurancе Pur- pellant. agreement, suant to this agreed Aetna Smith, Ramsden, Quane, How- Michael $3,000.00, Argonaut Argonaut if would Hull, Boise, defendant-respon- ard & discharge Farmers, release and and in- its dent. Aetna, demand, any from surer claim or May based on the 1977 acci- DONALDSON, Chief Justice. dent.1 total this case we decide the jury assessed Schneider’s are available to $20,000, attributing sixty percent compensation who received workmen’s ben- fault forty percent Farmers and employer, efits from his and later recov- Schneider. Sсhneider made alternative mo- damages against ered tions for a new trial or notwith- separate negligence suit. We also decide verdict, standing contending jury of these proper apportionment contrary reduced his award express party. as and third between jury instructions. These motions were de- nied. 13, 1977, Larry suf- May On Schneider employed a truck injury fered an while Farmers made motion to reduce the Inc., (hereinafter driver for Nelsons’ $5,638.52, judgment by the amount of Nelson). injury ferred to as occurred workmеn’s benefits Schneid- loading grain into
while
Schneider
er had received. Farmers contended it had
auger
supplied by
truck with an
owned and
discharged
subrogation rights
Nelson’s
Merchant,
(Farmers).
Inc.
Argo-
Farmers
by
agree-
virtue of
release
this amount
insurer,
Company,
naut Insurance
Nelson’s
initially
ment. This motion was
denied un-
Schneider
supplied
til
with suffi-
Farmers
the court
$5,638.52.
totaling
A compensa-
benefits
support
request.
cient evidence to
this
agreement
evidence,
to this effect
Upon receiving
was entered
the court hеld
18, 1977,
August
approved
into
and
a reduction in
by
that Farmers was entitled to
suits,
actions,
action,
agreement provided
rights,
pertinent
1. The release
ner of
causes of
covenants, contracts,
part:
judgments,
agreements,
claims,
(Assured Nelson’s,
Argonaut
whatsoever in law or
and demands
"That
Ins. Co.
contribution,
Inc.,
Schneider)
Larry
equity, including
aris-
claimant
for and in
claims for
any
by
consideration of the sum of Three thousand
and all
from and
reason
Dollars, ($3,000.00),
receipt
UNKNOWN,
and
no/100
AND
FORESEEN
KNOWN AND
sufficiency
hereby
and
of which is
acknowl-
personal injuries
bodily and
UNFORESEEN
remise,
edged,
hereby
release and forev-
does
death,
property,
damage
and the conse-
or
Merchant,
discharge
Aet-
er
Farmers
Inc. and
been,
thereof,
quences
heretofore have
Dargan
and as-
na Cravens &
his successors
by
may
hereafter
be sustained
and which
heirs, executors,
his, her,
signs,
their
and/or
any
persons,
Undersigned
associ-
and all
or
administrators,
any
and
persons,
and also
and all other
corporations,
herein
whether
and
ations
corporations,
associations
not,
especially
referred to or
named or
not,
whether herein named or referred
liability arising out of an occurrence
all
from
who,
above-named,
together
may
with the
day of
happened on or about the 13th
jointly
severally
Under-
be
signed,
liable
Blackfoot,
May,
Idaho."
at or near
all,
from
and all man-
of and
injured employee
but that an
the amount workmen’s
paid, “to
receive workmen’s
benefits
Therefore,
by plaintiff.”
bring
and thereafter
award,
total
reduced Schneider’s
a third
tortfeasor who was a
$20,000.00,
representing
amount
§
nonemployer.
7-223.”
I.C.
percent,
forty
plaintiff’s negligence,
(Citations omitted.)
at 169.
*3
compensation
workmen’s
the amount of
employee brings
against
If an
a suit
received, $5,638.52, result-
he had
benefits
party
receiving
to
a third
in addition
work
$6,361.48.
ing in
of
judgment
benefits,
compensation
this Court
this
appeals
judgment,
from
Schneider
system
apportioning
has established a
of
first,
trial court errone-
claiming
that
the
employee’s damages
the
between the em
by
ously
judgmеnt
his
the amount
reduced
ployer
party.
and third
The focus of this
paid,
compensation benefits
of workmen’s
(1)
in apportionment
Court
is two-fold:
to
determining
negligence
the
without first
an
equitable
liability
achieve
distribution
employer. Appellant further asserts
the
employee’s injuries
as between the
erroneously
reduced his
that the trial
employer
party,
and the third
based on the
prevent
in order to
re-
case,
(2)
prevent
facts of each
to
the
covery. Finally, appellant
contends
i.e.,
оvercompensation
employee,
of an
to
erroneously
the trial court
denied his mo-
retaining
employee
the
from
both
tions
a new trial or
notwith-
compensation
the
workmen’s
standing
disagree
verdict. We
all
recovery.
the full tort
counts.
system
has
apportionment
Our
foun-
§
§
72-209,
72-223,
I.C.
and former I.C.
§ 72-223(3).
We summarized
dation
I.C.
provide
analysis.
the framework for this
Tucker,
interpretation
our
of this section
§
employer’s
1.C.
li-
72-209 establishes
100 Idaho
P.2d at 169.
ability
under the Workmen’s
§
employer
an
provides
“I.C.
72-223
provision,
employer’s
Act.
this
Under
rights
may
subrogated
be
to the
of the
exclusive,
subject only
to I.C.
§
employee
employee
extent that the
to the
in Tucker
previously held
72-223.2 We
California,
v.
has
benefits.
In
Union Oil Co.
received
100 Idaho
Adams,
Liberty
Ins.
(1979),
Mutual
Co.
if was able to effect from a third-party payback This tortfeasor. travesty “... It would be indeed to be, however, never theory said to disqualification negli- hold that working that a man should not be able to gent employer somehow inure to should collect both insurance benefits and dam- negligent third-party benefit of the tort- ages occasioned him the third-party tort- feasor. I know of nor can neither divine readily acceptable feasor —but on the more any principle requires of law which that an theory, and less obvious well known in the injured employee extent of industry, insurance that an insurance com- payments suffer received elsewhere a re- pany always which has wants duction of the tort he has ob- subrogated employee’s rights to be against negligent third-party tained tort- payments extеnt of made. The Ida- recovery feasor. A double it is others, legislature, arranged ho as with so tortfeasor, tortfeasors, not. While legislatures it. no instance did the required pay damages should not be including of the states Idaho consider injury, they twice for the he or same subrogation that such provisions indiscrimi- given pay- should not the benefit nately subrogation rights awarded negli- injured person ments to which he gent non-negligent employers. as well as to they did This is the not make. collateral say All of which is recovery’ that ‘dоuble source doctrine. involved, was not is still not involved. joint and several been person’s injury Double injured collects tort are victim—make him never been pensation ages, a second against any Law supposed course, even under the Workmen’s law that a satisfied of those pretended approach making is caused is involved where a are whole tortfeasors justly compensate responsible no Law. the others. Dam- as it were. twice. specified Damages two or more it the *7 Cоmpensa- is a bar to has ever Where a injured person Work- It has com- Justice White in the third that the gress Act seeks to inequity indicate and supra, statutory inequity appears "... this so-called [61 intended to [443 L.Ed.2d If on the party having scheme, it is should protect.’ U.S. employee have the benefit thought 521] longshoreman Edmonds inevitable place 256] but recovery, we find it, appropriate: presume to be S.Ct. in the burden of the language Compagnie, inequitable nothing whom the that Con- [2753] present ‘Some fact, major In underly- workеr whole. ing premise Compensa- of the Workmen’s “A principle clear-cut of law evolved working
tion Law is to take from man from in Lib- holding the Court’s unanimous his common law to sue in tort for Mutual; erty by of that virtue decision the damages, him relegate and to the status of statutory law was modified to picks policy up an insured under a which negligent employer recovering from back expenses, gives his medical him a modest compensation payments might whether it mends, weekly stipend while an attempt injury employeе to do so from equally specific per- modest award for the negligent party. Today or the third injury. manent does not presented slightly Such amount to issue is in a different damages. Payments negligent received from indus- party context —with third regarded any wanting payments trial insurance should not be of the benefit those differently injured employer by payments negligent than an which the virtue of
248
proposition
in
regain. The an-
tomed on the
this state
may not
Liberty Mutual
profit by
wrong.
exactly the same as it was
no one should
own
swer should be
by
forecast
Liberty
in
Mutual and as
“Unfortunately it was destined to a short
non-negligent
in
em-
language
Court’s
life,
its de-
and I am saddened to observe
ployer case of
Wyeth.
Shields v.
A so-
deeply regret
I more
that it is laid to
mise.
balancing
equities does not
called
of the
any epitaph
of
rest without the comfort
negligent third-party tort-
require that the
recognizing
it
appropriately
has now
apples which
given the windfall
be
feasor
Perhaps
solace
been overruled.
negligent
from the tree of the
have fallen
brought
into
found that Idaho is now
back
employer.
forty-eight
majority
line with a clear
“
that,
significance
in the case
‘It is of
prefer to talk in terms
other states which
bench,
talking
really
about
we are
that,
recovery’ to the end
where
of ‘double
an
rights
obligations between
had,
worker
a so-called windfall is to be
party directly. On
employer and third
negli-
give way
in
either to the
rights
contrary,
deciding
we are
negligent
gent employer or to the
employer’s
obligations
between
person.”
party’s in-
insuranсe carrier and a third
2""'Thus,
brought by
whether an action is
compa-
surance carrier. Each insurance
employee,
or the
the third
undertak-
ny
paid premiums for
has been
able to invoke the concur
tortfeasor should be
It is neither the
the risks involved.
of the
to defeat its
either
rent
right
event,
reimbursement, since,
in
suffers
employer nor the third
who
brought
the action is
for the benefit
shifting
between the
by virtue of
employer to the extent that
bene
responsibility
insurance carriers of the
paid
employee.’"” (My
fits have been
emphasis.)
specified percentages
employee. Most
injured
suffered
606-13,
failing accept defendants to or a
“additur” new trial due the inade-
quacy damages. damage award for loss of thumb $20,000 prior to figure being
duced Schneider’s negligence and 40% workmen’s compensation received. had
The loss of a thumb is a severe
disabling impediment clearly and the court
abused its discretion failing to correct aspect judgment. STEPHENS, Plaintiff-Appel-
Mildred G.
lant, Cross-Respondent,
Thornton B. STEARNS and Diane C.
Stearns, wife, husband and
Defendants-Respondents, Koch, ux., wife,
Ronald et husband and Defendants, Third-Party-Plaintiffs,
Cross-Defendants, Respondents, Albanese, ux., M.
Arthur et husband and wife, Defendants, Cross-Claimants,
Respondents, Cross-Appellants, 8; through
John Does and XYZ Cor-
porations through 8, Defendants, Boise,
City Third-Party-Defendant.
No. 13976.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Jan. 1984.
Rehearing Denied March