Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital
55 Cal. 4th 291 (2012)
Rule of Law:
The common law 'release rule,' which provides that a plaintiff's release of one joint tortfeasor automatically releases all other joint tortfeasors from liability, is abrogated in California. When a settlement is not made in good faith, nonsettling tortfeasors remain jointly and severally liable for economic damages, the settlement amount is credited against the total damages award, and the nonsettling tortfeasors may seek contribution from the settling tortfeasor.
Facts:
- Aidan Ming-Ho Leung was born at Verdugo Hills Hospital on March 24, 2003, at less than 38 weeks' gestation and of East Asian descent, both risk factors for jaundice.
- His mother, Nancy Leung, experienced difficulty breastfeeding and expressed concern to hospital nurses multiple times.
- The next day, pediatrician Dr. Steven Wayne Nishibayashi declared Aidan healthy and approved his discharge from the hospital, which occurred approximately 24 hours after his birth.
- A follow-up appointment was scheduled for seven days later, and the parents were given a general care manual by the hospital.
- Three days after birth, Aidan's parents noticed he had jaundice and called Dr. Nishibayashi's office; a nurse told them not to worry and to wait for the scheduled appointment.
- Over the next two days, Aidan's condition worsened, and he became lethargic.
- On the sixth day after his birth, an on-call physician instructed the parents to take Aidan to an emergency room.
- At the emergency room, Aidan was diagnosed with kernicterus, which had resulted in severe and irreversible brain damage.
Procedural Posture:
- Aidan Leung, through his mother, sued Dr. Nishibayashi and Verdugo Hills Hospital for negligence in a California trial court.
- Before trial, Leung settled with Dr. Nishibayashi for $1 million, the limit of his insurance policy, and agreed to release him from all claims.
- The trial court denied Dr. Nishibayashi's motion for a good faith settlement determination, finding the amount 'grossly disproportionate' to his likely liability.
- A jury found Dr. Nishibayashi 55% at fault and Verdugo Hills Hospital 40% at fault, awarding significant economic and non-economic damages.
- The trial court entered a judgment holding the hospital jointly and severally liable for 95% of economic damages, subject to a $1 million setoff from the settlement.
- Verdugo Hills Hospital, as appellant, appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the economic damages award against the hospital, concluding it was bound by the common law release rule.
- Leung, as petitioner, sought and was granted review by the Supreme Court of California.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the common law 'release rule,' which states that a plaintiff's release of one joint tortfeasor from liability automatically releases all other joint tortfeasors, remain valid in California?
Opinions:
Majority - Kennard, J.
No. The common law release rule is no longer to be followed in California because it can lead to unjust and inequitable results. The court reasoned that the rule's historical rationale—that there can be only one compensation for an injury—is flawed because it incorrectly assumes any settlement amount constitutes full compensation. In reality, a plaintiff might settle for less due to a tortfeasor's limited resources. By abrogating this 'harsh' and 'criticized' rule, the court aligns California law with the modern principles of comparative fault and ensures plaintiffs are not unjustly denied full recovery from all responsible parties. For settlements not made in good faith, the court adopts the 'setoff-with-contribution' approach: nonsettling tortfeasors remain jointly and severally liable for economic damages, the settlement amount is credited against the judgment, and the nonsettling tortfeasors can then seek contribution from the settling tortfeasor for any amounts paid in excess of their proportionate fault. This method preserves joint and several liability and discourages collusive, low-value settlements.
Analysis:
This decision formally abolishes the long-standing but heavily criticized common law release rule in California, preventing a plaintiff's settlement with one tortfeasor from inadvertently extinguishing claims against others. It clarifies the procedure for handling settlements determined not to be in good faith, adopting the 'setoff-with-contribution' method. This holding reinforces California's commitment to comparative fault principles and joint and several liability for economic damages, ensuring that liability is apportioned based on fault and that injured plaintiffs have a path to full recovery. The ruling also creates a strong disincentive for defendants to enter into collusive or disproportionately low settlements to shield themselves from further liability.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Aidan Ming-Ho Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital (2012)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"