Opinion ID: 1130381
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: part iv: whether common liability exists here involves material disputed questions of fact.

Text: First off, we must note that appellees' position on appeal is that the instant record points to only one answer to the question of whether the school entities are liable for all of the harm resulting from Beller's treatment of Morgan, to wit: they are and, thus, a common liability exists between original tortfeasor(s), doctor and clinic. If this record was actually conclusive on this point our discussion in PART III would be dispositive  § 832(H)(1) and Moss would control, and the release deemed insufficient to discharge any tortfeasors other than the school entities. However, at least some further discussion is in order because we believe appellees are incorrect in their assertion that this record indisputably leads to the conclusion the school entities would be liable for all harm resulting from the treatment afforded to Morgan by Beller, an assertion contested below and on appeal by Morgan. Our law that an original tortfeasor causing initial injury is liable for harm suffered at the hands of a physician providing treatment for the injury is consistent with the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 457 (1965). Atherton v. Devine, supra, 602 P.2d at 636 n. 1, in fact, quoted § 457 which provides: If the negligent actor is liable for another's bodily injury, he is also subject to liability for any additional bodily harm resulting from normal efforts of third persons in rendering aid which the other's injury reasonably requires, irrespective of whether such acts are done in a proper or negligent manner. As noted in PART III the rule as to a physician is merely a particular application of the rule that a tortfeasor whose negligence causes injury is also liable for any subsequent injury or reinjury that is the proximate result of the original wrongdoing, except where the subsequent injury or reinjury is caused by either the negligence of the injured person, or the independent or intervening act of a third person. Atherton, supra, 602 P.2d at 636-637. Comments d and e to § 457 and the examples thereto make clear that the original tortfeasor is liable only for the risks normally inherent in submitting to medical, surgical or hospital treatment, not harm caused by extraordinary misconduct of health care providers or harm outside the risks which are incidental to treatment made necessary by the original tortfeasors' wrongdoing. Thus, the original wrongdoer would not be liable for the subsequent mistreatment where a nurse, unable to bear the sight of the victim's intense suffering, gives an injection of morphine in disobedience of the surgeon's instructions and so excessive she knows it might be lethal. § 457, Comment d, Illustration 4. Nor would the original tortfeasor be liable should the victim take advantage of a hospital stay to have an unrelated procedure performed, e.g. victim's initial injury is a broken leg, but examination reveals an unrelated hernia for which surgery is negligently performed. § 457, Comment e, Illustration 6. Atherton, supra, 602 P.2d at 637, in discussing proximate cause and reasonable foreseeability in the context of whether an original tortfeasor is liable for subsequent harm brought on by those coming to the aid of an injured person, recognized the issue will many times involve questions of fact for the jury's consideration. This is so because: Causation traditionally lies in the realm of fact, not law. In an action for injuries caused by the defendant's negligence, it is a jury question whether the injurious consequences resulting from the negligence could have reasonably been foreseen or anticipated. Likewise, where the evidence is conflicting or where reasonable men might draw different conclusions, the question of reasonable foreseeability of an intervening act or agency causing subsequent injury is to be determined by the jury. Foreseeableness becomes a question of law for the court only when one reasonable conclusion can be drawn from the facts. (footnotes omitted). Id. In the present case Morgan presented an affidavit from another physician who opined that the numerous subsequent surgeries created new, separate, additional and distinct injuries which caused the amputation and [Beller's acts or omissions] w[ere] not simply the treatment offered to deal with the fractures in [Morgan's] right lower leg which had never healed. As seen by the above discussion, under our decision in Atherton, supra and § 457 of the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, there may be situations where the original tortfeasor is not liable for the malpractice of the health care provider because the misconduct of the latter is so extraordinary that it could no longer be said that the original wrongdoing which caused an initial injury is the proximate cause of the harm resulting from the subsequent malpractice. Instead, the factual circumstances may support the view that the health care provider(s) acts or omissions are independent and intervening ones which have caused harm not reasonably foreseeable by the original tortfeasor. In our opinion, viewing the record in the light most favorable to Morgan, leads to the conclusion that this record is simply not sufficient to tell where Beller's treatment of Morgan falls. Although Beller contends in his affidavit all treatment was in an effort to either repair the initial fractures or deal with them by amputation because they had not properly healed (thus allowing Morgan to obtain a prosthetic device so she could bear weight on her right leg), given the conflicting affidavit of another doctor (Charles E. Workman, M.D.), no decision can presently be made as to whether Beller's treatment was such that the general rule favoring original tortfeasor liability would apply. On this record, a factual question exists in such regard because the reasonable inference from the affidavit of Workman is that Beller's treatment may have in some way been extraordinary, something which may not have been within a normal effort to render aid to Morgan for the injuries suffered at the football stadium, notwithstanding appellees' protests otherwise. Thus, if eventually it turns out that Beller (and the clinic) are alone liable for some or all of Morgan's injuries resulting from Beller's treatment, although the UCATA and Moss would not apply because of the lack of common liability for the same injuries, the release in any event would not discharge appellees. In such event, an independent and separate cause of action would exist against the doctor and clinic for the harm caused by the independent and intervening acts or omissions of the doctor and under no theory would the release at issue be considered a discharge of doctor or clinic. Such injuries or harm could no longer be viewed as proximately caused by the wrongdoing of the school entities and no longer could be said to result from the accident occurring at the football stadium where Morgan originally injured her leg. In that appellees do not argue, and we do not believe, any language in the release could be construed to have as itsintent the discharge of appellees in such a situation, the potential that common liability does not exist as to all harm caused by Beller's treatment, accordingly, provides another basis to reverse the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of appellees, even assuming § 832(H)(1) of the UCATA does not apply.