Opinion ID: 2633521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Cases Involving Both Successive and Concurrent Theories

Text: {48} The final issue we address is how to instruct and guide the jury in cases, such as this one, where there are both negligence theories: successive tortfeasor liability and comparative fault. Here, one of Plaintiff's negligence theories was that the Clinic did not properly relay Plaintiff's medical history to the Hospital. This theory cannot support a successive tortfeasor claim because it does not indicate a distinct injury at the Clinic followed by a successive injury at the Hospital. Thus, this negligence theory more properly asserts a concurrent liability claim: comparative fault among concurrent tortfeasors causing a single injury at the Hospital. {49} When the plaintiff is asserting claims that fall under both theories, it will be up to counsel, under review of the trial judge, to divide the claims appropriately and present them to the jury under the proper theory. For example, two of Plaintiff's claims asserted that the Clinic was negligent in not administering an IV and in not responding properly to Plaintiff's pain. Both of these theories should be presented to the jury with the above instructions for determining whether they fall under successive tortfeasor liability. Then separately, Plaintiff can present the claim regarding the Clinic's failure to properly relay the Plaintiff's medical history, followed by instructions on comparative fault and concurrent tortfeasor liability. {50} The claims should not be grouped together as was done here. Doing so makes it more confusing to a jury that is attempting to determine whether two causally-distinct injuries have been proven. Thus, dividing each claim and presenting it under the correct theory is the appropriate way to approach multiple claim cases.