Norman v. Wright

100 S.W.3d 783 (Mo. banc 2003) · Supreme Court of Missouri · March 18, 2003 · No. SC 84650

Summary

The Supreme Court of Missouri held that a reduction of a tort judgment under section 537.060 must be pleaded and proved as an affirmative defense. Because the defendant physician did not plead the reduction and the parties did not consent to try that issue, the trial court improperly reduced the jury's verdict by the amount of a pretrial settlement. The judgment was reversed and remanded.

Court
Supreme Court of Missouri
Writing for the Court
Benton, J.
Jurisdiction
Missouri
Decision date
March 18, 2003
Docket number
SC 84650
Procedural posture
Plaintiffs appealed from a circuit-court judgment reducing a jury verdict in their wrongful-death medical-malpractice action by the amount of a pretrial settlement with other defendants. After an opinion by the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court of Missouri granted transfer.
Standard of review
Whether the trial court erroneously declared the law; the issue was reviewed as a matter of law under Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).
Precedential value
published precedential opinion of the Supreme Court of Missouri, decided en banc
Parties
Jerry Norman, Kimberly Norman, Jerry Norman as plaintiff ad litem for Kenneth D. Norman v. Andy J. Wright, M.D.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

medical malpracticewrongful deathaffirmative defensesstatutory interpretationcivil procedure

Practice areas

medical malpracticewrongful deathcivil procedureremedies

Questions Presented

  1. Whether section 537.060 applied when the parties had agreed not to submit fault apportionment under section 538.230.
  2. Whether a reduction under section 537.060 is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved.
  3. Whether the Normans impliedly consented under Rule 55.33(b) to trial of the unpleaded reduction issue.

Holdings

  1. When all parties agree not to apportion fault under section 538.230, section 537.060 applies to reduce the claim by the stipulated settlement amount or the amount of consideration paid, whichever is greater.
  2. A reduction under section 537.060 is an affirmative defense that must be pleaded and proved.
  3. The Normans did not impliedly consent under Rule 55.33(b) to trial of Dr. Wright's unpleaded request for a section 537.060 reduction.

Key quotations

A reduction under section 537.060 must be pleaded and proved as an affirmative defense. (100 S.W.3d at 785)
The trial court should not have reduced the judgment, because Dr. Wright failed to plead and prove the affirmative defense of reduction under section 537.060. (100 S.W.3d at 786)

Factual background

The Normans' son died from brain damage suffered during birth. They sued Dr. Wright, another doctor, and a hospital, and the latter two defendants settled for $100,000 before trial. Dr. Wright initially sought jury apportionment under section 538.230, but that request was stricken and he later orally waived apportionment. After the jury awarded $308,855.35, Dr. Wright moved for the first time to reduce the verdict by the settlement amount.

Procedural history

The Normans sued Dr. Wright and two other defendants for the wrongful death of their son. The other defendants settled for $100,000 before trial. The jury returned a verdict of $308,855.35 against Dr. Wright, and the circuit court later reduced the verdict by $100,000 under section 537.060 despite Dr. Wright's failure to plead the reduction as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

Remand instructions

The judgment reduction under section 537.060 must be set aside; the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…