specially concurring:
I concur in the judgment of the court. However, I write separately to express my views regarding the applicability of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (Act), sections 13-50.5-101 to -106, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.), to this case and Perlmutter v. Blessing, 706 P.2d 772 (Colo.1985), both of which are announced today.
*783
My analysis begins with the premise that the purpose of the Act is to permit the equitable apportionment of a claimant’s damages among the joint tortfeasors whose conduct combined to cause those damages. § 13-50-105, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). See Mountain Mobile Mix, Inc. v. Gifford, 660 P.2d 888, 889 (Colo.1983) (the Act “provides for the equitable apportionment of damages among tortfeasors according to relative degrees of fault”), and National Farmers Union Property & Casualty Co. v. Frackelton, 662 P.2d 1056, 1058 (Colo.1983) (the Act “was designed to remedy a harsh common law rule.... [It permits] the shifting of losses equitably among those tortfeasors who cause the damages.”). ' Thus, the effect of the Act on a claimant’s right to recover damages from joint tortfeasors is not diminished.
The Act affects claimants only in three ways. First, the principle of joint and several liability is retained by the Act so that each tortfeasor is responsible to the claimant for the full amount of the judgment reflecting the fact finder’s award of damages. Mountain Mobile Mix, 660 P.2d at 889; Frackelton, 662 P.2d at 1059. Second, the Act abrogates the common law rule that the release of one joint tortfeasor releases the remaining joint tortfeasors from all further liability to the claimant. See, e.g., Cingoranelli v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Casualty Insurance Co., 658 P.2d 863 (Colo.1983); Price v. Baker, 143 Colo. 264, 352 P.2d 90 (1959) (common law rule that release of one releases all). Third, the Act codifies the Colorado principle that monies received by the claimant from a joint tortfeasor in return for a covenant not to sue or execute against that tortfeasor must be credited against the damages assessed against the non-settling tortfeasors.1 § 13-50.5-105, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). See also Cox v. Pearl Investment Co., 168 Colo. 67, 450 P.2d 60 (1969).
The Act does not define the term “joint tortfeasor.” Prosser states that a joint tort is one in which “two or more persons may be joined as defendants in the same action at law.” W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 47, 293 (4th ed. 1971) (emphasis added). A joint tortfeasor is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as follows: “Where two or more persons owe to another the same duty and by their common neglect such other is injured, the tort is ‘joint.’ ” Black’s Law Dictionary 973 (4th ed. 1957) (emphasis added).
B.
With these principles in mind, I turn first to a discussion of Kussman. In my view, the threshold inquiry is whether Janet Gray (Gray) remained a joint tortfeasor with the City of Denver (City) vis-a-vis Barbara Kussman (plaintiff or Kussman) un*784der the Act after Gray’s negligence was imputed to the plaintiff. The other side of the coin is whether Kussman can assume the status of a joint tortfeasor after the doctrine of imputed negligence was invoked by the City.
Kussman brought suit only against the City. The City, in turn, filed a third-party complaint against Gray in which it alleged that Gray’s negligence should be imputed to Kussman. Hence, when the City chose to submit to the jury the issues concerning Gray’s negligence and the imputation of that negligence to Kussman, it elected its remedy. In these circumstances, a joint tortfeasor may either take advantage of a legal and factual theory of imputation or claim a credit for the settlement under section 13-50.5-105, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). Having chosen the former path, the negligence of Gray was imputed to Kussman.
While the principle has never been precisely articulated by this court, it is clear that a plaintiff can never be a joint tort-feasor with regard to the plaintiff’s own damage claim. See Frackelton, 662 P.2d at 1063 (“It is only necessary that ‘two or more persons become jointly or severally liable in tort for the same injury to person or property.’ ”) (emphasis added); Mountain Mobile Mix, 660 P.2d at 889 (“Historically, the doctrine of joint and several liability places the full obligation to pay damages on each and every defendant.... [The Act] opted to retain this rule.”) (emphasis added); Miller v. Singer, 131 Colo. 112, 116, 279 P.2d 846, 848 (1955) (“[A]ll those who actively participate in any manner in the commission of a tort are jointly and severally liable therefor_”).
The effect of imputing Gray’s negligence is to apportion 49 percent contributory negligence to Kussman and 51 percent negligence to the remaining tortfeasor, the City. Any other interpretation of the facts and the law confuses the doctrine of comparative negligence with that of contribution. The net result is no different than a case in which the claimant herself is negligent rather than having a third party’s negligence imputed to her. I know of no authority which adopts the rule that a claimant can be characterized as a joint tort-feasor with others concerning the claimant’s damages. The logical extensión of such a holding would permit a claimant to sue himself or herself. This extension would be contrary to the generally accepted notion that a plaintiff’s negligence .relates only to a failure to use reasonable care for his or her own protection, while a defendant’s negligence relates to a lack of such care for the safety of others. American Motorcycle Association v. Superior Court, 20 Cal.3d 578, 146 Cal.Rptr. 182, 578 P.2d 899 (1978) (“[I]nsofar as the plaintiff’s conduct creates only a risk of self-injury, such conduct, unlike that of a negligent defendant, is not tortious.”). Id., 578 P.2d at 906. W. Prosser, The Law of Torts § 65, 418 (4th ed.1971).
At least one court has recognized this comparative negligence issue involving imputed negligence. In Laubach v. Morgan, 588 P.2d 1071 (Okla.1978), the court noted:
We do not deal here with such problems as imputed or vicarious liability, where negligence of two or more tortfeasors is treated as a unit, so that so far as the comparative negligence doctrine is concerned, it is the same as if only one defendant is involved.
Id. at 1074 n. 13 (emphasis added). Thus, the negligence of persons in an imputed negligence relationship ought to be treated as a unit, whether they are plaintiffs or defendants, for purposes of comparative negligence. This view is consistent with the combined negligence of defendants rule adopted by this court in Mountain Mobile Mix, 660 P.2d 883 (Colo.1983). The observation of the court in Laubach leads me to conclude that the Act has no application in this case because, as a result of the “unit” rule, only one defendant is involved. Here, instead of the imputation doctrine applying *785between defendants, the City elected to seek its application between a third-party defendant and the plaintiff. When the trial court imputed Gray’s negligence to Kuss-man, Gray’s negligence became that of Kussman.
The dispute over how much money Kuss-man is entitled to receive and who shall pay what percentage is answered simply. The inquiry is resolved by a consideration of the principles of comparative negligence. Kussman is deemed 49 percent at fault. Therefore, she may only receive up to 51 percent of the damages fixed by the jury from the City, the only defendant recognized after imputation of negligence. The City cannot be forced to pay more than 51 percent of the total damages; not because of the pro rata requirements of the Act, but because of the Colorado principles governing comparative negligence.
In addition, a predicate for contribution under the Act is that two or more persons are legally liable for the same injury. I.C.I. America, Inc. v. Martin Marietta Corp., 368 F.Supp. 1148, 1151 (D.Del.1974); Walker v. Patterson, 325 F.Supp. 1024, 1026 (D.Del.1971); Rowe v. John C. Matter Printing Co., 273 F.Supp. 363, 365 (D.R.I.1967); Cacchillo v. H. Leach Machinery Co., 305 A.2d 541, 543 (R.I.1973). It follows then that once negligence has been imputed from one tortfeasor to the plaintiff, the remaining tortfeasor has no one from whom to seek contribution.
In summary, the imputation of Gray’s negligence to the plaintiff at the request of the City terminated the joint tortfeasor relationship between Gray and the City. Moreover, the imputed negligence does not render Kussman a joint tortfeasor. Thus, the Act is inapplicable and the City is not entitled to any credit for the amount of the settlement.
c.
In contrast to Kussman, I believe the Act applies in Perlmutter and I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the amount of the settlement should be deducted from the total damages.
At first blush, the result in Perlmutter appears to be unfair. Such is not the case, however. The judgment against Harmony Homes was $67,037. Of that amount, $44,-427 in damages were assessed as the joint and several liability against all of the joint tortfeasors. Accordingly, the claimants could have pursued efforts to collect the $44,427 judgment from just one of the joint tortfeasors. If one of those tortfeasors paid the entire joint and several judgment, that tortfeasor would have no remedy against his fellow tortfeasors absent the Act. Mountain Mobile Mix, 660 P.2d at 889; Frackelton, 662 P.2d at 1058. Here, one of the joint tortfeasors settled with the claimants by payment of $30,000 which released it from all liability to the claimants. The release discharged the settling tort-feasor’s liability to the plaintiffs not only for the $67,000 in damages, but also from any exposure to execution on the joint and several judgment. § 13-50.5-105, 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). Thus, the trial court properly deducted the settlement amount from the total damage award. The non-settling tort-feasors are, therefore, liable for $37,037, approximately $7,000 less than the limit of their exposure as reflected in the joint and several judgment. This application of the statute gives full and complete recognition to the Act. First, the claimant’s damage award is unaffected as required by section 13-50.5-102(2), 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.). Second, the non-settling tortfeasors have obtained a credit of over $7,000 against their liability as mandated by section 13-50.5-105(l)(a), 6 C.R.S. (1984 Supp.).
I am authorized to say that Justice ERICKSON joins me in this special concurrence.
. The question of whether the amount of the settlement should be deducted from the jury’s verdict or from the damage figure remaining after P.I.P. benefits, comparative negligence percentages, statutory damage limits, and other deductions or credits are considered is not an issue presented in these cases. The authorities which have addressed that question are in conflict. Compare, e.g., Truesdale v. South Carolina Highway Dep't, 264 S.C. 221, 213 S.E.2d 740, (1975) (first reduce the award by the settlement then reduce it by the comparative negligence percentage); and Jackson v. Barton Malow Co., 131 Mich.App. 719, 346 N.W.2d 591 (1984) (subtract the settlement figure from the award prior to subtracting the comparative negligent percentage); with, e.g., Lemos v. Eichel, 83 Cal. App.3d 110, 118-19, 147 Cal.Rptr. 603, 606-07 (1978) ("the correct procedure is to apply each plaintiff’s contributory fault percentage reduction to the total damage and reduce the resulting figure by the amount of that plaintiffs pretrial settlement”); Scott v. Cascade Structures, 100 Wash.2d 537, 673 P.2d 179, 183 (1983) (same); Gomes v. Brodhurst, 394 F.2d 465 (3d Cir.1967) (same); Theobald v. Angelos, 44 N.J. 228, 208 A.2d 129 (1965) (same); Pierringer v. Hoger, 21 Wis.2d 182, 124 N.W.2d 106 (1963) (same).
For a more in depth discussion of the amount of damages the plaintiff can recover from non-settling tortfeasors after one or more tortfeasors settles with the plaintiff prior to trial, see J. Fleming, Report to the Joint Committee of the California Legislature on Tort Liability on the Problems Associated with American Motorcycle Ass’n v. Superior Court, 30 Hastings L.J. 1465, 1494-98 (1979).