Sitzes v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.
289 S.E.2d 679 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A judicial decision abolishing a common law immunity doctrine may be applied retroactively. West Virginia recognizes a right of comparative contribution among joint tortfeasors based on their relative degrees of fault, and prohibits the set-off of counter-judgments in tort cases where both parties are covered by liability insurance.
Facts:
- On January 19, 1977, Patricia Ann Roberson was a passenger in a pick-up truck driven by her husband, James R. Roberson.
- The pick-up truck collided with a motor truck operated by Oswald R. Carter, an employee of Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.
- Patricia Ann Roberson was killed in the accident.
- She was survived by her husband, James R. Roberson, and her son, Joseph Eugene Roberson.
Procedural Posture:
- The administrators of Patricia Ann Roberson's estate sued Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia for wrongful death.
- Anchor Motor Freight filed a third-party complaint against James R. Roberson, the decedent's husband, seeking contribution.
- A jury found for the plaintiffs, awarding $100,000 in damages.
- The jury allocated the award as $75,000 for the son and $25,000 for the husband, James R. Roberson.
- In the third-party action, the jury found Anchor Motor Freight 70% negligent and James R. Roberson 30% negligent.
- The U.S. District Court certified several questions of state law to the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Under West Virginia's comparative negligence framework, is a joint tortfeasor entitled to contribution from another joint tortfeasor based on their relative percentages of fault, and is a set-off of counter-judgments permissible when both parties are covered by liability insurance?
Opinions:
Majority - Miller, Chief Justice
Yes, a joint tortfeasor is entitled to contribution based on relative degrees of fault, but no, a set-off is not permissible under these circumstances. West Virginia law allows for comparative contribution among joint tortfeasors, and the court, in its equitable discretion, will not permit a set-off of counter-judgments where both parties have liability insurance coverage. The court first held that its prior decision in Coffindaffer, which abolished interspousal immunity, should be applied retroactively because it was designed to correct a flawed area of tort law and was foreshadowed by a clear trend of abolishing other common law immunities. The court then established a right of comparative contribution, reasoning that the adoption of comparative negligence logically extends to apportioning liability among defendants based on their respective degrees of fault, which is more equitable than the prior pro-rata system. Finally, the court held that allowing a set-off of the judgments between Anchor and Roberson would create a windfall for their insurance carriers, contravening the public policy behind financial responsibility laws, which is to ensure compensation for injured parties. The court concluded that its equitable discretion allows it to prohibit set-offs to prevent such an unjust result.
Analysis:
This decision significantly modernizes West Virginia tort law by formally adopting the doctrine of comparative contribution, aligning the state with a growing national trend. By moving from a pro-rata to a fault-based system of contribution, the court ensures a more equitable distribution of liability among multiple defendants. The prohibition on set-offs in cases with insured parties establishes a strong, policy-driven precedent that prioritizes victim compensation over financial benefits to insurance carriers, which will influence how multi-party litigation and settlements are structured in the future.
Unlock the full brief for Sitzes v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc.