Mayhugh

Mayhugh was driving a truck for her company and was rear ended by Kenneth Brian Augustine, an employee of Orange County. Augustine was driving his personal automobile on county business. Mayhugh suffered personal injuries as a result of this collision.

Mayhugh sued Augustine and Orange County. Mayhugh’s employer’s compensation carrier Zenith National Insurance Company paid extensive benefits to Mayhugh and intervened to recover these benefits from Augustine and Orange County.

*765 Mayhugh with Zenith’s consent settled with Augustine for his policy limits. Mayhugh moved the court for a determination this settlement was in good faith under 877.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 1 The county resisted this motion on the theory section 877.6 was applicable to joint tortfeasors and did not apply to respondeat superior situations. The court ruled Mayhugh’s settlement with Augustine was in good faith. Mayhugh and Zenith filed dismissals with prejudice as to Augustine, leaving Orange County as the only defendant.

Before trial, Orange County moved to dismiss Mayhugh’s and Zenith’s complaints contending the dismissals with prejudice of the employee (Augustine) exonerated the…

I respectfully dissent.

The majority have correctly identified the dispositive issue, and that is whether sections 875-880 of the Code of Civil Procedure, enacted in 1957 under the title of “Releases From and Contribution Among Joint Tortfeasors,” abridge the common law which dictates that the employer be released from liability if the claimant releases the employee who injured the claimant.

In holding that the result of such enactment was to abridge the common law and to introduce a rule which allows employer liability to remain even though the employee is released, the majority, in addition to pursuing only a cursory statutory analysis, says that “[a]ny doubt that these sections were intended to apply to respondeat superior situations was dispelled by Ritter v. Technicolor Corp. (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 152 [ 103 Cal.Rptr. 686 ].” Ritter is flawed in its reasoning, and the statutory analysis offered by the majority begs the question.

Turning to Ritter , that opinion recites that “Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that defendants Filmland Corp. and two individuals who dominated it made knowingly false representations to plaintiffs to induce them to enter into contracts with Filmland…