NO. 92-130
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1993
LARRY BOYKEN,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
STEVEN STEELE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Cascade,
The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
H. William Coder, Attorney at Law,
Great Falls, Montana
For Respondent:
Patrick F. Flaherty, Attorney at Law,
Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 6, 1992
Decided: February 11, 1993
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court.
Plaintiff Larry Boyken brought this action against defendant
Steven Steele to recover damages for intentional assault and
battery. A jury assessed Boyken's damages at $2500, but found that
Boyken was 75 percent responsible for the incident which caused his
injuries. The District Court granted Boyken's motion for a
judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and awarded the full amount
of damages. The District Court did not allow offset against
amounts previously received by Boyken for the same injuries in a
negligence settlement with Lee's Northside Bar. Prom this
judgment, Steele appeals. We reverse.
The following issue is dispositive of this appeal:
Was plaintiff entitled to recover damages without regard to
amounts collected from another defendant as compensation for the
same injuries?
This action arises from a barroom fight between Larry Boyken
and Steven Steele on the evening of July 25, 1990, which resulted
in facial injuries to Boyken. Boyken filed a complaint in District
Court naming Steele and Lee's Northside Bar in Great Falls as
co-defendants. He alleged that Steele had committed assault and
battery and that the bar had been negligent.
Prior to trial, Boyken settled with the bar's insurance
carrier for $5000. The bar was discharged from any further
liability, and the release further stated that any claims for
contribution or indemnity against the bar were extinguished. The
complaint against the bar was then dismissed.
2
The claim against Steele was tried in October 1991, and the
jury found that Steele had committed assault and battery when he
"sucker punched" Boyken in the eye. The jury found that Boyken's
actual damages as a result of that incident totalled $2500.
However, the jury also found that Boyken had used profane and
abusive language and had challenged Steele to fight him, and was
therefore responsible for 75 percent of his own damages.
Boyken moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict pursuant
to Rule 50(b), M.R.Civ.P., and argued that the doctrine of
comparative negligence should not be applied to bar recovery in
cases based upon intentional torts. The District Court agreed, and
on December 5, 1991, granted a directed verdict in favor of Boyken.
The court held it was error to instruct the jury on the doctrine of
comparative negligence, and pursuant to the jury verdict, entered
judgment for Boyken in the amount of $2500.
The District Court also held that the terms of the release
signed by Boyken and the bar had clearly reserved Boyken's right to
sue for the intentional tort of assault, and that the settlement
against the bar should not be offset against the damages recovered
from Steele. Therefore, the court concluded that Boyken was
entitled to a judgment of $2500 against Steele, with no offset
against amounts recovered in the previous settlement. Steele
appeals from this decision.
We need not address the issue raised by Steele regarding
whether it was proper to apply comparative negligence in this
situation, because we conclude that Boyken was fully compensated
3
for his injuries by the bar and is not entitled to recover an
additional damage award under any legal theory.
The jury, after hearing testimony and considering the
evidence, found that Boyken had incurred actual damages in the
amount of $2500. That finding has not been challenged or appealed.
Furthermore, Boyken received $5000 from the bar in a voluntary
settlement for those same damages. The law is clear in Montana
that when a joint tort-feasor settles with a claimant, the
claimant's recovery against the remaining tort-feasor is to be
reduced dollar-for-dollar by the consideration paid by the settling
tort-feasor. State ex rel. Deere & Co. V. D&ict Court ( 19 8 6 ) , 2 2 4 Mont. 38 4 ,
386, 730 P.2d 396, 398. (Seealso whitiEgv.state (lYYl), 248 Mont. 207,
810 P.2d 1177; Madduxv.Bunch (1990), 241 Mont. 61, 784 P.2d 936;
Kuhnkev. Fisher (1987), 227 Mont. 62, 740 P.2d 625.) This policy
provides a single satisfaction for a single injury. kfaa%I.x, 784
P.2d at 940.
In this case, Boyken raised claims against Steele and the bar
as joint tort-feasors, alleging intentional assault and battery,
and negligence, respectively. These alleged acts together resulted
in the facial injuries sustained by Boyken. There can only be one
amount of actual damages as a result of those injuries. The jury
found that amount was $2500. Since the $5000 Boyken received in
the settlement with the bar exceeds his total actual damages,
Boyken is entitled to no additional compensatory damages from
Steele.
4
We hold the District Court erred when it entered the judgment
against Steele in the amount of $2500 without allowing an offset in
the amount previously received by Boyken as compensation for the
same injuries. We reverse and remand for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
We concur:
5