Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc.
On November 25, 2008, in Ready v. United/Goedecke Services, Inc., Docket No. 103474, the Illinois Supreme Court, in a plurality decision, held that section 2-1117 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to tortfeasors or defendants who have settled before judgment. As a result, the Court found that settling defendants should not be included in the apportionment of fault for the purposes of determining relative liability pursuant to section 2-1117.
In doing so, the Illinois Supreme Court ostensibly resolved a conflict among the Illinois Appellate Courts. Justice Freeman construed the statutory language "defendants sued by the plaintiff" to be ambiguous, citing the diverse appellate holdings and the majority's disagreement with the dissenting opinion. The plurality relied upon: (1) the Legislature's failure to amend the statute after it was first construed not to apply to settled parties in Blake v. Hy Ho Restaurant, Inc., 273 Ill.App.3d 372 (5th Dist. 1995); and (2) the 1995 tort reform amendments (deemed unconstitutional in Best v. Taylor Machine Works, 179 Ill.2d 367 (1997)) which had included settling defendants in the apportionment of fault as evidence that section 2-1117, as enacted in 1986, was never intended to include settling tortfeasors in the allocation of fault. In a special concurrence that supplied the fourth vote to reverse, Justice Kilbride agreed that section 2-1117 was unclear but concluded that the meaning was clear from an examination of the statute as a whole. Justice Thomas took no part in the decision. Justice Garman, in a dissent in which Justice Karmeier concurred, would have found the plain meaning of section 2-1117 to be unambiguous based on dictionary definitions of the word "sued" and disagreed with the plurality's reliance on certain tools of statutory construction. The dissent concluded that the result reached by the plurality was contrary to the goals of the legislature in striking a balance between fully compensating injured parties and fair imposition of liability upon tortfeasors.
As a result of this decision, a minimally responsible defendant may not be allowed to present evidence of the fault of settled parties or other tortfeasors who might have been responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. A lone defendant, which may be only 1% at fault, could be liable for 100% of the judgment, less the amount of the settlements with the more culpable defendants. Similarly, defendants confident that they are less than 25% at fault in comparison to other parties may find themselves jointly and severally liable because the more culpable defendants settle at the eve of trial. On the other hand, plaintiffs benefit from only needing to present their cases against defendants at trial rather than having to deal with the empty chairs of the settling, and potentially more culpable, defendants. While the non-settling defendants are entitled to an offset of any settlement amount, it appears from this decision that the fault of the settling defendant is not to be considered by the jury in allocating fault. It is unknown at this time whether the legislature will address this ruling through an amendment to section 2-1117.
