## Facts

- Aidan Ming-Ho Leung was born at Verdugo Hills Hospital in March 2003 and discharged the same day.
- Days later, his parents observed jaundice and called his pediatrician, Dr. Steven Wayne Nishibayashi; they were told there was no need for an earlier visit than a scheduled appointment several days away.
- Aidan’s condition worsened; he later presented to an emergency room with extremely elevated bilirubin and developed kernicterus, causing severe permanent brain damage.
- Aidan, through his guardian ad litem, sued (1) Dr. Nishibayashi for negligent diagnosis/treatment and (2) the Hospital for negligent neonatal discharge practices, including inadequate parental instruction and inadequate policies to prevent kernicterus.
- Before trial, Aidan settled with and released Dr. Nishibayashi for $1 million (policy limits), with an agreement that the doctor would appear at trial for allocation of comparative fault and damages.
- The trial court found the settlement was not in good faith under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6 because it was grossly disproportionate to the doctor’s likely share of liability and total damages.
- A jury awarded substantial damages and found comparative fault of 55% to Dr. Nishibayashi, 40% to the Hospital, and 5% to Aidan’s parents.
- The trial court entered judgment making the Hospital jointly and severally liable for economic damages attributable to tortfeasors (excluding the parents’ share) and severally liable for its share of noneconomic damages.

## Issues

1. Whether the common-law rule that a release of one joint tortfeasor releases all others remains valid after California’s comparative-fault decisions and the enactment of Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6.
2. Whether a plaintiff’s settlement with and release of one tortfeasor, when not found to be in good faith under §§ 877 and 877.6, automatically releases nonsettling tortfeasors from liability for the plaintiff’s damages (including economic damages).

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeal.
- The Court held that releasing one tortfeasor in a settlement does not, by itself, release other joint tortfeasors, even if the settlement was not determined to be in good faith.
- The Court expressly abrogated the common-law “release rule” in California.
- The case was returned for proceedings consistent with preserving the plaintiff’s claims against the nonsettling defendant, subject to proper credits/setoffs tied to the settlement and applicable allocation rules.

## Legal Principles

- In California, a plaintiff’s release of one tortfeasor does not discharge other tortfeasors unless the release expressly provides otherwise.
- The statutory settlement scheme in Code of Civil Procedure §§ 877 and 877.6 governs the effects of settlements among multiple tortfeasors and supersedes the common-law doctrine that a release of one releases all.
- A “good faith” determination primarily affects contribution and comparative-indemnity rights and statutory settlement consequences; the absence of good-faith protection does not extinguish the plaintiff’s claims against nonsettling tortfeasors.
- Concerns about double recovery are managed through credits/setoffs and comparative-fault allocation, not by discharging a nonsettling defendant’s liability.

## Conclusion

The California Supreme Court eliminated the common-law rule that releasing one joint tortfeasor releases all others and held that a plaintiff may settle with and release one defendant—without a good-faith finding—while continuing to pursue remaining defendants, with any overpayment concerns handled through appropriate settlement credits rather than a complete discharge.


Leung v. Verdugo Hills Hospital, 55 Cal. 4th 291 (Cal. 2012)