ROBERT M. WHALEN, APPELLANT, v. KAWASAKI MOTORS CORP., U.S.A., ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS, AND ROBINSON CYCLE SALES, INC., RESPONDENT. (APPEAL NO. 1)
92 N.Y.2d 288, 703 N.E.2d 246, 680 N.Y.S.2d 4359 (1998).
October 15, 1998
4 No. 124
(Case Summary by the Editorial Board)
(98 NY Int. 0112)
Decided October 15, 1998
_________________________________________________________________
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
in the New York Reports.
_________________________________________________________________
Stephen G. Schwarz, for appellant.
Dennis R. McCoy, for respondent.
CIPARICK, J.:
In this personal injury action involving multiple defendants,
plaintiff before trial settled with the Kawasaki
defendants/manufacturers, and at trial was found to share comparative
fault with the remaining nonsettlingdefendant/retailer, Robinson Cycle
Sales, Inc. We must decide whether plaintiff's recovery by verdict
should be first reduced in accordance with the comparative fault
provisions of CPLR 1411, or by the settlement setoff rule codified
in General Obligations Law (GOL) § 15 108(a). A threshold issue,
however, is whether under the circumstances of this case the
nonsettling defendant, Robinson, should have been permitted to invoke
the GOL § 15 108(a) setoff. We hold that the setoff was properly
allowed, but that the "settlement first" method of computation should
apply.
Plaintiff Robert M. Whalen suffered serious injuries when the three
wheel all terrain vehicle (ATV) he was driving crashed into a tree.
The ATV in question was designed and manufactured by defendants
Kawasaki Motors Corporation, U.S.A., Kawasaki Motors Manufacturing
Corporation, U.S.A., and Kawasaki Heavy Industries, Ltd. (collectively
Kawasaki), and had been sold to plaintiff's friend by defendant
Robinson. Plaintiff thereafter brought this action in Supreme Court,
seeking compensatory and punitive damages under theories of
negligence, strict products liability, and breach of express and
implied warranties.
SNIPPETS:
In this personal injury action involving multiple defendants, plaintiff before trial settled
We must decide whether plaintiff's recovery by verdict should be first reduced in accordance
A threshold issue, however, is whether under the circumstances of this case the nonsettling
Plaintiff thereafter brought this action in Supreme Court, seeking compensatory and punitive
Robinson, in turn, declined to seek any apportionment of liability against Kawasaki,
Reasoning that Robinson had waived its rights to a GOL § 15 108 setoff of the Kawasaki
The Appellate Division reversed, holding that Supreme Court had erred in denying Robinson's
Citing Williams v Niske (81 NY2d 437), the Appellate Division first discounted the
New York's comparative fault rules are codified in CPLR 1411, which provides for the
In tort actions involving multiple defendants where a plaintiff settles with one or more
The purpose of the statute is to encourage settlement, although the statute is also concerned
Moreover, thepossibility of double recovery should be avoided (see, Williams v Niske, supra,
|
