BOYKEN v STEELE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 92-130 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993 LARRY BOYKEN, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. STEVEN STEELE, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Appellant. District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Thomas M. McKittrick, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: H. William Coder, Attorney Great Falls, Montana For at Law, Respondent: Patrick F. Flaherty, Great Falls, Montana Submitted Attorney at on Briefs: Decided: Law, August February 6, 1992 11, 1993 Justice Terry N. Trieweiler Plaintiff Steven Larry Steele battery. to A jury recover assessed The judgment of Steele intentional granted Court received defendant assault and which caused his Boyken's motion and awarded the did not by Boyken for with against the incident the verdict, settlement negligence for for Court The District amounts previously action damages at $2500, but found that responsible District of the Court. this damages Boyken's notwithstanding damages. the opinion Boyken brought Boyken was 75 percent injuries. delivered Lee's allow the issue is dispositive Was plaintiff entitled a amount offset against Bar. in a Prom this We reverse. The following full same injuries Northside appeals. for judgment, amounts collected to of this recover from another appeal: damages without defendant regard as compensation to for the injuries? same This action and Steven in facial Court arises Steele to Boyken. Steele and that Prior carrier liability, contribution complaint to for fight of July Northside that Steele between 25, 1990, Boyken filed and Lee's He alleged co-defendants. battery on the evening injuries naming from a barroom Larry which a complaint Bar in resulted in District Great had committed Boyken Falls assault as and the bar had been negligent. trial, Boyken settled with $5000. The bar was discharged and the release or indemnity against further against stated the bar's from that any insurance any claims the bar were extinguished. the bar was then 2 dismissed. further for The The jury claim found against that Steele "sucker actual damages the abusive 50(b), comparative cases on December The court held comparative judgment sue was error negligence, for The signed it Boyken District for against the bar Steele. entitled and the amounts appeals from situation, recovered this We need the to of held to $2500 doctrine of bar in recovery in agreed, and favor of Boyken. on the jury doctrine verdict, terms of reserved and against of entered previous the Boyken's that the concluded against the pursuant Court the assault, court and was $2500. that be offset in the jury the had clearly of him, and the damages that Steele, with release right to settlement recovered Boyken no was offset settlement. Steele decision. not was of that verdict instruct profane the verdict The District the a judgment against it not Therefore, to whether bar fight be applied amount tort should own damages. a directed also intentional the from the Court by Boyken of and pursuant in $2500. to his used he Boyken's totalled had not to when that Steele torts. granted found Boyken argued should and the battery incident and intentional 5, 1991, that 1991, and notwithstanding M.R.Civ.P., upon that 75 percent judgment October The jury challenged for negligence based of in assault eye. found and had responsible Rule the result also moved for was tried committed in a jury Boyken to as language therefore had Boyken punched" However, Steele address proper because the to issue apply we conclude raised comparative that 3 Boyken by Steele negligence was fully regarding in this compensated for his injuries additional damage The that $2500. settlement for that a when claimant's and is under any legal hearing damages $5000 dollar-for-dollar been challenged from the The law is settles the by the in in a in Montana claimant, remaining tort-feasor consideration paid the is by the to State ex rel. Deere & Co. V. D&ict Court ( 19 8 6 ) , 2 2 4 Mont. 386, 396, 810 P.2d Madduxv.Bunch 1177; Kuhnkev. Fisher (1987), provides P.2d a single at joint the facial of found 241 Mont. 62, for respectively. actual 740 248 Mont. 207, 784 936; 61, P.2d 625.) a single entitled was with P.2d This injury. the policy kfaa%I.x, 784 and the no alleged exceeds additional Steele. 4 of Steele assault acts by Boyken. Since bar against intentional as a result $2500. to claims These sustained damages amount settlement is raised alleging injuries that Boyken Boyken tort-feasors, amount the Mont. satisfaction case, and negligence, in 227 (1990), (lYYl), 38 4 , bar 940. In this as (Seealso whitiEgv.state 398. be settling tort-feasor. 730 P.2d the a voluntary clear with the or appealed. bar damages. against an theory. actual tort-feasor recovery recover incurred has not received joint to considering had same entitled and finding those not testimony Boyken That Boyken Furthermore, reduced bar after found of the award jury, evidence, amount by the $5000 his together There those and battery, can only injuries. compensatory be one The jury Boyken total resulted received actual in damages, damages from We hold against the same the Steele amount in the previously injuries. consistent District Court amount received We reverse with this erred of when it $2500 without by and opinion. We concur: 5 Boyken remand entered allowing the an offset as compensation for further judgment for proceedings in the
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
