Superior Court of California 

County of Los Angeles – West District 

Beverly Hills Courthouse / Department 205 

 

 

BACKGROUND 

 

This is a trip and fall case.  Plaintiff Margaret Medina tripped and fell on a parkway that was uneven and contained jagged bricks.  She was being transported in a van driven by Defendant Spencer Wray (“Wray”), an employee of Defendant the City of Culver City (“City”).  Wray placed Plaintiff’s walker on the raised and uneven brick parkway.  Once Plaintiff got to her walker, she released the brake and attempted to walk forward only to fall backward after snagging on the edge of one of the raised bricks.  Plaintiff sued the City, Wray, the manufacturer and distributor of her walker, and the homeowners’ association (“HOA”) that owned the parkway.       

Defendant Medical Depot, Inc. dba Drive Devilbiss Healthcare is the manufacturer of the walker, and Defendant McKesson Medical Surgical, Inc. is the distributor (collectively “Moving Defendants”).  Moving Defendants have settled with Plaintiff for $35,000.  The settlement is contingent upon this Court determining that the settlement is in good faith and barring all existing or future claims for contribution and/or indemnity against the Moving Defendants.         

This hearing is on Moving Defendants’ motion for a determination of good faith settlement.  The City and Spencer Wray agreed that the settlement is in good faith, but HOA refused to so stipulate.  Moving Defendants argue that they have met the criteria for determination of a good faith settlement outlined by the California Supreme Court in Tech Bilt Inc. V. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs. (1985) 38 Cal.3d 488.  No opposition was filed as of the posting of this tentative ruling.   

LEGAL STANDARD 

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 877.6, “[a]ny party to an action in which it is alleged that two or more parties are joint tortfeasors or co-obligors on a contract debt shall be entitled to a hearing on the issue of the good faith of a settlement entered into by the plaintiff or other claimant and one or more alleged tortfeasors or co-obligors.”  (Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(a)(1).)  “The issue of the good faith of a settlement may be determined by the court on the basis of affidavits served with the notice of hearing, and any counter-affidavits filed in response, or the court may, in its discretion, receive other evidence at the hearing.” (Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(b).)   

Section 877.6 requires “that the courts review [settlement] agreements made under its aegis to insure that the settlements appropriately balance the . . . statute’s dual objectives” of (1) providing an “equitable sharing of costs among the parties at fault” and (2) encouraging parties to resolve their disputes by way of settlement.¿ (Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 494.) 

“A determination by the court that the settlement was made in good faith shall bar any other joint tortfeasor or co-obligor from any further claims against the settling tortfeasor or co-obligor for equitable comparative contribution, or partial or comparative indemnity, based on comparative negligence or comparative fault.”  (Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(c).)  The party asserting the lack of good faith shall have the burden of proof on that issue.  (Code Civ. Proc.§ 877.6(d).)   

In Tech-Bilt, the California Supreme Court set forth the following factors for evaluating whether a proposed settlement was made in good faith: (1) a rough approximation of plaintiffs’ total recovery and the settler’s proportionate liability; (2) the amount paid in settlement; (3) the allocation of settlement proceeds among plaintiffs; (4) discount for settlement before trial; (5) the financial conditions and insurance policy limits of settling defendants; and (6) the existence of collusion, fraud, or tortious conduct aimed to injure the interests of non-settling defendants.  (38 Cal.3d at 499.)  The Court considers each of these factors below. 

DISCUSSION 

Rough Approximation/Settlement Amount 

The first Tech-Bilt factor consists of two parts – a rough approximation of Plaintiff’s total recovery and the settlor’s proportionate liability.¿ When approximating a plaintiff’s total recovery or the settling defendant’s proportionate liability, “judges should . . . not yearn for the unreal goal of mathematical certainty.¿ Because the application of section 877.6 requires an educated guess as to what may occur should the case go to trial, all that can be expected is an estimate, not a definitive conclusion.”¿ (North County Contractor’s Assn. v. Touchstone Ins. Services (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1085, 1090 (hereafter, North County).)¿¿¿ 

¿ Additionally, “a court not only looks at the alleged tortfeasor’s liability to the plaintiff, but it must also consider the culpability of the tortfeasor vis-à-vis other parties alleged to be responsible for the same injury.¿ Potential liability for indemnity to a nonsettling defendant is an important consideration for the trial court in determining whether to approve a settlement by an alleged tortfeasor.¿ [Citation.]”¿ (TSI Seismic Tenant Space, Inc. v. Superior Court (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 159, 166.)¿ 

‘[A] defendant’s settlement figure must not be grossly disproportionate to what a reasonable person, at the time of the settlement, would estimate the defendant’s liability to be.”¿ (Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)¿  However, even though “an offer of settlement must bear some relationship to one’s proportionate liability, bad faith is not ‘established by a showing that a settling defendant paid less than his theoretical proportionate or fair share.”¿ (North County, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at p.1090.)¿ “Such a rule would unduly discourage settlements” and “convert the pretrial settlement approval procedure into a full-scale mini-trial.”¿ (Tech-Bilt, supra, 38 Cal.3d at p. 499.)¿  Rather, in order to meet the proportionality requirement, “all that is necessary is that there be a ‘rough approximation’ between a settling tortfeasor’s offer of settlement and his proportionate liability.” (North County, supra, 27 Cal.App.4th at pp. 1090–1091.)¿  

The second Tech-Bilt factor – amount of settlement – is closely related to the first factor and addresses whether the settlement amount is within the ballpark of settling defendant’s share of liability.  In determining whether the settling defendant’s settlement figure is “within the ballpark”, the Court may rely on “the judge’s personal experience” and the experience of “experts in the field.”¿ (Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal.3d at 500.)¿      
¿ Here, Moving Defendants argue that the settlement amount is well within the ballpark of Plaintiff’s prospective recovery against them at trial.  Moving Defendants contend they have strong defenses to Plaintiff’s claim, including that Plaintiff cannot show the accident was caused by a defect in the walker.  Rather, according to Moving Defendants, the accident occurred because a City employee (Wray) placed Plaintiff’s walker on an uneven brick parkway that was not maintained by either the City or the HOA.  The evidence also shows that Plaintiff placed 5-6 heavy grocery bags on her walker, making the walker unbalanced, uneven and more likely to tip over.  Thus, the walker fell over because of improper use, and not due to any design or manufacturing defect.  Further, McKesson agues it did not sell or distribute the walker to Plaintiff.      

Considering these disputes regarding causation, comparative liability and whether a defect even exists, the Court concludes the settlement amount is well within the range of Moving Defendants’ potential proportionate liability.  Accordingly, the first two Tech-Bilt factors weigh in favor of finding a good faith settlement.   

Allocation of Settlement Proceeds 

Because Plaintiff is the only plaintiff in this action, this factor does not apply. 

 

Discount for Settlement Before Trial 

Moving Defendants argue that this factor favors a finding of good faith, since their potential liability is low, and the confidential settlement amount is proportionate given their disputed liability.¿ The Court expressly recognizes that a settlor should pay less in settlement that it would if it were found liable after trial.¿ This factor supports a good faith determination.¿ (See Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011) 194 Cal.App.4th 939, 968.)¿ 

Financial Condition and Insurance Policy Limits 

Moving Defendants have not shown their financial condition and insurance policy limits merit a good faith determination.  Accordingly, this factor does not weigh in favor of or against a good faith determination. 

Collusion, Fraud or Other Tortious Conduct 

There is no evidence of collusion, fraud or other tortious conduct aimed at injuring the interests of non-settling defendants.  Rather, the settlement was reached after extensive and contentious negotiations.  Moving Defendants have also shared the settlement terms with the remaining defendants.       

 

CONCLUSION 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Moving Defendants’ motion for determination of a good faith settlement.   

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

DATED: September 28, 2023 ___________________________ 

Edward B. Moreton, Jr. 

Judge of the Superior Court