Bervoets v. Harde Ralls Pontiac-Olds - 891 S.W.2d 905 (Tenn. 1994)

Rule:

Actions for contribution that are to be tried or retried after May 4, 1992, are to be tried in accordance with the principles of comparative fault.

Facts:

Defendant minor driver, after drinking at third-party defendant restaurant, wrecked his car in which plaintiff injured was a passenger, causing plaintiff permanent injuries. Plaintiffs, the injured man and his wife, brought a negligence action against defendants, the driver and his parents. Defendants and their third-party plaintiff insurer filed a third-party negligence action against third-party defendant. The third-party defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, and the trial court granted the motion as to the common law indemnity claim but denied it as to the contribution claim. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court, denying the motion to dismiss and holding that the contribution claim was to be determined with reference to the principles of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act. The third-party defendant appealed. 

Issue:

Was it proper to determine the contribution claim with reference to the principles of the Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act? 

Answer:

No.

Conclusion:

The court modified and remanded for a determination under comparative fault principles. The court reasoned that the decision in McIntyre v. Balentine, 833 S.W.2d 52 (Tenn. 1992) dictated that contribution actions tried or retried after May 4, 1992 were to use comparative fault because that decision did not eliminate contribution, and retroactive application of the case did not deprive third-party plaintiff of any right.