Ziarko v. Soo Line Railroad
204 Ill. Dec. 178, 641 N.E.2d 402, 161 Ill. 2d 267 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act permits a defendant found guilty of willful and wanton conduct to seek contribution from a negligent defendant, provided the willful and wanton acts were reckless and not intentionally tortious misconduct. Furthermore, "common liability" under the Act, for purposes of contribution, is the amount agreed upon in a good-faith post-judgment settlement that releases all tortfeasors, not necessarily the original jury verdict.
Facts:
- Ronald Ziarko was injured in May 1982 in a railroad yard owned by Soo Line Railroad Company.
- Ziarko, who was employed as a truck driver, had stopped his truck in an area of the railroad yard operated by Milwaukee Motor Transportation Company.
- Shortly after Ziarko alighted from his truck, the truck was struck by a Soo Line train.
- This collision caused the truck to hit Ziarko, inflicting substantial injuries.
Procedural Posture:
- Ronald Ziarko filed suit against Soo Line Railroad Company and Milwaukee Motor Transportation Company, alleging negligent and willful and wanton misconduct by Soo Line and ordinary negligence by Milwaukee Motor.
- Soo Line and Milwaukee Motor filed cross-counterclaims for contribution under the Contribution Act.
- A jury trial returned a verdict for Ziarko in the amount of approximately $7.1 million, finding Soo Line 95% at fault (willful and wanton) and Milwaukee Motor 5% at fault (ordinary negligence), and Ziarko 3% contributorily negligent.
- The trial court refused to reduce Ziarko’s damages by his contributory negligence and entered judgment according to the jury's apportionment of the defendants' liability.
- Both Soo Line (appellant) and Milwaukee Motor (appellee) appealed the trial court’s judgment to the appellate court.
- During the appeal, Soo Line and Ziarko entered into a settlement agreement where Soo Line paid $6.65 million, and Ziarko agreed to release all claims against both defendants.
- The appellate court remanded the matter to the circuit court in view of the settlement agreement.
- Upon remand, the trial court determined that the settlement agreement did not obligate Soo Line to pay more than its pro rata share of the jury’s verdict and denied Soo Line’s request for contribution from Milwaukee Motor.
- The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s determination (234 Ill. App. 3d 860).
- This court (Illinois Supreme Court) granted Soo Line's (appellant) petition for leave to appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
1. Does the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act permit a defendant found guilty of willful and wanton conduct (reckless, but not intentional) to seek contribution from a defendant found guilty of ordinary negligence? 2. Is "common liability" under the Contribution Act defined by the amount of a jury verdict or by the amount of a good-faith post-judgment settlement that releases all tortfeasors?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McMorrow
Yes, the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act permits a defendant found guilty of willful and wanton conduct to seek contribution from a defendant found guilty of ordinary negligence, and "common liability" under the Act is the amount agreed upon in a post-judgment settlement where the settlement agreement released the plaintiff’s claims against both defendant tortfeasors and was not in bad faith. The court held that the Contribution Act is intended to apportion liability based on relative fault, excluding only intentionally tortious conduct. Willful and wanton conduct is recognized as a "hybrid" between negligence and intentional torts, encompassing both intentional acts and merely reckless behavior. The court distinguished between intentional willful and wanton conduct, which bars contribution consistent with the common law rule against contribution among intentional tortfeasors, and reckless willful and wanton conduct, which does permit contribution. The court rejected the appellate court's reliance on Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, Inc., which found a "qualitative difference" between negligence and willful and wanton conduct for comparative fault purposes, by noting that Burke's analysis focused on intentional willful and wanton acts and policy considerations related to punitive damages, not compensatory damages apportionment. For the second issue, the court affirmed that the Act's goal is to encourage good-faith settlements. Courts have consistently held that settlement amounts, even if different from jury verdicts, determine "common liability" if made in good faith and releasing all tortfeasors, as the Act does not distinguish between pre-trial and post-judgment settlements. Since Milwaukee Motor did not argue that the settlement was entered into in bad faith, the settlement amount of $6.65 million, which extinguished Milwaukee Motor’s liability to Ziarko, constituted the common liability.
Dissenting - Justice Nickels
No, the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act does not permit a defendant found guilty of willful and wanton conduct to seek contribution from a negligent tortfeasor. Justice Nickels argued that the legislative history of the Contribution Act, as interpreted in Gerill Corp., indicates it was intended solely for negligent tortfeasors, not intentional ones, and by extension, not for willful and wanton ones. He asserted that Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, Inc. correctly recognized a "qualitative difference" between negligence and willful and wanton conduct, precluding the application of comparative fault principles. The dissent criticized the majority for creating a new distinction between "recklessly willful and wanton" and "intentionally willful and wanton" conduct, arguing it muddies existing legal concepts. Justice Nickels emphasized that willful and wanton conduct involves a "quasi-mental state" and a conscious disregard for risk, carrying a moral blame absent in simple negligence, as evidenced by its capacity to negate immunities and justify punitive damages. He concluded that any change to allow such contribution should come from the legislature, not the judiciary, and that the majority improperly acted as a jury in determining the nature of Soo Line's conduct without specific jury findings on the new distinction.
Concurring - Justice Harrison
Yes, the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act permits a defendant found guilty of willful and wanton conduct to seek contribution from a negligent tortfeasor, but the majority's reexamination of Burke v. 12 Rothschild’s Liquor Mart, Inc. was unnecessary for this determination. Justice Harrison agreed with the result but clarified that Burke was a comparative negligence case, addressing whether willful and wanton conduct constituted "negligence" under a different statute. This case, conversely, involves contribution under the Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, which uses broader language, applying whenever parties are "subject to liability in tort." He noted that Illinois law recognizes willful and wanton conduct as a tort that can be either intentional or unintentional (reckless). Since Gerill Corp. established that only intentional tortfeasors are excluded from the Act, it logically follows that unintentional, reckless willful and wanton conduct falls within its scope, allowing contribution. Therefore, he argued, the court did not need to revisit or criticize Burke, as its analysis was irrelevant to the statutory construction of the Contribution Act concerning contribution among joint tortfeasors.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the scope of the Illinois Joint Tortfeasor Contribution Act, expanding the circumstances under which contribution is permitted between tortfeasors. By distinguishing between intentional and reckless willful and wanton conduct, the court harmonized the 'hybrid' nature of willful and wanton acts with the principle of equitable apportionment of liability for compensatory damages. The decision also provides important guidance on the definition of "common liability" in post-judgment settlements, incentivizing dispute resolution and providing certainty to parties. This refined understanding impacts future litigation by requiring a more nuanced assessment of a tortfeasor's mental state when contribution is sought and solidifies the enforceability of good-faith post-judgment settlements in contribution claims, thereby promoting judicial economy.
