Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds, Inc.
891 S.W.2d 905 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Actions for contribution tried or retried after the adoption of comparative fault must be governed by the principles of comparative fault, where liability is apportioned based on each party's percentage of fault, rather than the pro-rata division mandated by the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).
Facts:
- On July 5, 1980, Adanac, Inc., operating as Cactus Jack’s restaurant, served alcoholic beverages to Lee Jackson.
- At the time, Lee Jackson was a minor for the purpose of purchasing alcoholic beverages.
- After consuming the alcohol, Jackson was involved in a car wreck.
- Michael Bervoets, a passenger in Jackson's car, suffered severe and permanent injuries as a result of the wreck.
- Safeco Insurance Company, Jackson's insurer, entered into a settlement with Bervoets for $1,250,000, which released all claims Bervoets had against all potential defendants, including Adanac.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Bervoets brought a negligence action against Lee Jackson and his parents.
- The Jacksons and their insurer, Safeco, filed a third-party complaint for contribution against Adanac, Inc. under the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA).
- After settling with Bervoets, Safeco pursued its contribution claim against Adanac.
- The first trial resulted in a verdict for Adanac, which was set aside by the trial court.
- The second trial resulted in a verdict for Safeco, but the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment and remanded for a new trial.
- While the case was pending retrial, the Supreme Court of Tennessee decided McIntyre v. Balentine, establishing comparative fault in the state.
- Adanac filed a motion to dismiss Safeco's contribution claim, which the trial court denied.
- Adanac, as appellant, appealed the denial to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the contribution claim should proceed under the old UCATA rules. Safeco was the appellee.
- Adanac, as appellant, appealed to the Supreme Court of Tennessee.
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 judicial adoption of comparative fault abolish the statutory right to contribution, or does it require that contribution claims be determined based on each tortfeasor's percentage of fault rather than the pro-rata division of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (UCATA)?
Opinions:
Majority - Drowota, Justice.
No, the adoption of comparative fault does not abolish the statutory right to contribution; it requires that contribution claims be determined based on each tortfeasor's percentage of fault rather than the pro-rata division of the UCATA. The court reasoned that its prior decision in McIntyre, which established comparative fault, could not and did not intend to eliminate the legislatively created remedy of contribution. However, the McIntyre decision did intend to create a comprehensive scheme where liability is based on fault. The UCATA's 'pro rata share' approach, which divides damages equally among the number of liable defendants regardless of their relative fault, is in direct conflict with the principles of comparative fault. Therefore, while the right to contribution survives, the method of apportionment must be modified to align with comparative fault, meaning a jury will determine the percentage of fault attributable to each defendant to calculate their respective contribution shares.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies a crucial consequence of Tennessee's judicial shift from contributory negligence to comparative fault in McIntyre v. Balentine. It preserves the statutory right of contribution but fundamentally alters its application, ensuring consistency within the new tort framework. By replacing the UCATA's rigid, per-capita division of liability with a flexible, fault-based apportionment, the court reinforces the core principle that liability should be proportional to fault. This precedent prevents the contribution statute from operating as an outlier and ensures that all aspects of tort liability, including actions between co-tortfeasors, are governed by comparative fault principles.
