LEISURE GROUP, INC., AN OHIO CORPORATION, AND HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY, INC., A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, APPELLANTS,
v.
MARY K. WILLIAMS, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT FRIEND AND NATURAL GUARDIAN OF THE MINOR, TODD WILLIAMS, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A mother sued manufacturers and sellers of a defective swing set that injured her minor child, settling with some defendants for $4,500 while obtaining a $10,000 judgment against others. The appellate court affirmed but modified the judgment to reflect a partial setoff for settlements with other tortfeasors, reducing the award to $6,535.
Appellants were entitled to have settlement amounts deducted from the judgment under Florida Statute 768.041(2). However, because the jury was informed of only the $1,035 settlement with Funtime Nursery but not the full $4,500 in total settlements, only a partial setoff was appropriate, reducing the judgment by the difference between $4,500 and $1,035.
[1] A defendant is entitled to a setoff against a judgment for the amount of settlements previously paid by a codefendant in consideration of partial satisfaction of the dama…
[2] Evidence of a release of one of several tortfeasors is generally inadmissible before a jury, but its introduction may be considered harmless error if prejudice is not sho…
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“If a defendant demonstrates to the court that the plaintiff has released a codefendant in consideration of partial satisfaction of the damages sought the amount stipulated by the release is to be set off from the amount of a judgment returned in favor of the plaintiff.”
Establishes the legal rule for mandatory setoff of settlement amounts under Florida Statute 768.041(2)
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceTodd Williams was injured while playing on a swing set at Funtime Nursery. The swing set was manufactured by Leisure Group and sold by W. T. Grant. Th…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Setoff cases and more on FLexlaw
BOARDMAN, Chief Judge.
Appellee/plaintiff, Mary K.
Williams, filed a complaint against Leisure Group, Inc., its insurer, Hartford Insurance Company; W. T.
Grant, Inc., its insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance; Funtime Nursery, Inc., and its insurer, Travelers Indemnity Corp. alleging negligence and breach of warranty.
The complaint alleged that appellee’s minor child, Todd Williams, was injured while he was playing at Funtime Nursery on a swing set sold by W. T.
Grant and manufactured by Leisure Group.
Prior to trial, settle ments were negotiated between appellee and W. T.
Grant and Liberty Insurance in the amount of $1,500 and between appellee and Funtime Nursery and Travelers in the amount of $3,000.
The case proceeded to trial as to the liability of appellants/def end-ants, Leisure Group and Hartford Insurance.
Final judgment was entered against them for $10,000.
Appellants contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a setoff against the judgment.
We hold that appellants were entitled to have the total amount of the settlements deducted from the damages awarded by the jury to appellee.
If a defendant demonstrates to the court that the plaintiff has released a codefendant in consideration of partial satisfaction of the damages sought the amount stipulated by the release is to be set off from the amount of a judgment returned in favor of the plaintiff.
Section 768.041(2), Florida Statutes (1975).
It is not necessary, however, in this case to deduct the full $4,500 from the judgment.
During trial appellants’ counsel asked appellee if she had filed a suit against Funtime Nursery alleging negligent supervision of her son which she subsequently settled.
Appellee responded over her attorney’s objection that she had.
Appellee’s counsel on later examination asked her how much she had received from the settlement: Q How much — let’s hear it, Mary, how much did you collect from this nursery school? A What did I get out of it? Q Yeah. A A thousand— Q A thousand dollars? A —thirty-five dollars. Q Okay.
You got a thousand dollars, is that right? A A thousand and thirty-five, I believe it was.
In closing arguments appellee’s counsel suggested to the members of the jury that they deduct that amount to reach an award of damages.1 Absent a showing on appeal by appellants to the contrary we assume that the jury did so.
Nonetheless, since the jury knew nothing of the settlement with W. T.
Grant nor the full amount of the settlement with Funtime Nursery a partial setoff is warranted.
Accordingly, we modify the $10,000 judgment by reducing it to $6,535, which is $10,000 less the difference between $4,500 and $1,035.
The judgment as modified is AFFIRMED.
GRIMES and SCHEB, JJ., concur. .
Although it is error to introduce evidence before a jury of a release of one of several tortfeasors, prejudice has not been shown to result, and it is harmless.
Furthermore, both parties could be said to have invited error since appellant initially brought the subject to the jury’s attention, and appellee reminded the jury of the settlement in closing arguments.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Idilia C. Balsera and Branislav Obrenovic v. A.B.D.M. & P. Corp., 511 So. 2d 679 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…evidence to the contrary, we must assume that the jury considered this testimony in reaching its verdict, and therefore find that the trial court correctly refused to set off the verdict with these same payments. See Leisure Group, Inc. v. Williams, 351 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Accordingly, we affirm the summary judgment under review, but reverse the judgment entered against Fernandez and remand to trial court for entry of judgment against Fernandez in conformity with the directions herein.…
-
Rockwell Int'l Corp. v. Gregorie Menzies and Ziol Menzies, 561 So. 2d 677 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990)…n this point. City of Coral Gables v. Levison, 220 So. 2d 430 (Fla. 3d DCA 1969); Hevia v. Palm Terrace Fruit Company, 119 So. 2d 795 (Fla. 2d DCA 1960); see generally, Bould v. Touchette, 349 So. 2d 1181 (Fla.1977); Leisure Group, Inc. v. Williams, 351 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The record demonstrates that Judge Silver offered to recess the proceedings to allow Rockwell to obtain clarification from the judge who entered the default order as to whether its comparative negligence defense could be tried.…
-
Builder's Square, Inc. v. Shaw, 755 So. 2d 721 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999)…we must assume that the jury considered this testimony in reaching its verdict, and therefore find that the trial court correctly refused to set off the verdict with these same payments.” 511 So. 2d at 681; see also Leisure Group, Inc. v. Williams, 351 So. 2d 374 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). Likewise, in this case, we assume that the jury used the settlement in fixing damages and, thus, hold the trial judge erred in granting the setoff for the amount of the settlement. Accordingly, we remand to the trial court for c…
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence