Toxic Tort and Environmental Law Update: September 2012 -- California Supreme Court Overturns Common Law “Release Rule”


[author: Edmund Wang]

In Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, 282 P.3d 1250 (Cal. 2012), a unanimous California Supreme Court repudiated the common law “release rule,” which previously held that a plaintiff who settles with and releases one joint tortfeasor from liability also releases all other joint tortfeasors from liability.

Aidan Ming-Ho Leung suffered brain damage a week after his birth.  Through his parents, Aidan sued his pediatrician and the hospital in which he was born.  Before trial, Aidan’s pediatrician settled for $1 million—his malpractice insurance policy limit.  At trial, the jury apportioned 55 percent of fault to the pediatrician, 40 percent to the hospital, and 5 percent to Aidan’s parents.  On appeal, the hospital argued that under the common law release rule, Aidan’s settlement with his pediatrician also released the hospital from liability for Aidan’s economic damages.  The Court of Appeal reluctantly agreed.  The jury had calculated economic damages of approximately $15 million.


To avoid such harsh results, the California Legislature had modified the release rule by statute in 1957.  Under California Code of Civil Procedure section 877, when one tortfeasor settles in good faith, the other defendants receive an offset rather than a release, and they are barred from bringing a contribution action against the settling tortfeasor.  However, the statute did not apply here because the trial court had found the settlement with the pediatrician not to be good faith.


“In light of the unjust and inequitable results the common law release rule can bring about, as shown in this case,” the court abandoned the release rule.  The court went on to hold that when settlement with one tortfeasor is not in good faith, the plaintiff may recover the full amount of any later judgment minus an offset from the nonsettling tortfeasors, who then, if stuck with a disproportionate share of liability, can bring a contribution action against the settling tortfeasor.  The court found this “setoff-with-contribution” approach to be the most consistent with the basic principles of “comparative fault” and “joint and several liability.”

Written by:

Published In:

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Sedgwick LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »

All the intelligence you need, in one easy email:

Great! Your first step to building an email digest of JD Supra authors and topics. Log in with LinkedIn so we can start sending your digest...

Sign up for your custom alerts now, using LinkedIn ›

* With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name.