Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department · 1967 · Torts
27 A.D.2d 931 (1967)
Updated
Tortssummary judgmentsatisfaction and dischargeconcurrent negligencejoint tortfeasorsCourt of Claimssingle recoverydismissal after satisfaction
Facts
In September 1962, two cars collided at an intersection in Greene County, New York. Three actions were commenced and later consolidated. During the pendency of those actions, plaintiffs Bundt, three Mondini plaintiffs, and Ferrario accepted payment of judgments they had obtained against the State of New York in the Court of Claims for injuries caused in the collision. The papers before Special Term showed only that the State was concurrently negligent with the appellants and defendant Embro, and that the judgments against the State were recovered because of that concurrent negligence.
Issue
Whether plaintiffs who accepted payment of judgments against the State of New York for injuries arising from the collision could continue their consolidated tort actions against other defendants alleged to be concurrently negligent. More specifically, did acceptance of those judgment payments constitute satisfaction and discharge barring further recovery against the appealing defendants?
Rule
Where a plaintiff has obtained and accepted satisfaction of damages through payment of a judgment against one concurrently negligent tortfeasor for injuries arising from the same occurrence, that satisfaction bars further action against other concurrently negligent defendants for the same damages.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Buffalo, Nina Porter was injured when a delivery van driven by Caleb Dunn collided with her car at an intersection where a malfunctioning municipal traffic signal contributed to the crash. Nina obtained a judgment against the City Transit Operations Fund in a separate action based on the city's concurrent negligence and accepted payment of that judgment while her negligence suit against Caleb and his employer, Lakefront Parcel Services, was still pending.
If Caleb and Lakefront move for summary judgment on the ground of satisfaction and discharge, how should the court rule?
Explanation. The motion should be granted. The governing rule is that once a plaintiff has accepted payment of a judgment against one concurrently negligent tortfeasor for injuries arising from the same occurrence, that payment constitutes satisfaction of damages and bars further action against other concurrently negligent defendants for the same damages. The majority opinion turned on accepted payment and the same injuries caused by concurrent negligence.