Opinion ID: 1387335
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: May the legislature constitutionally apply comparative fault to misuse cases?

Text: The amicus Arizona Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA) submits that applying comparative fault principles to the common-law defense of product misuse violates article 2, section 31 of the Arizona Constitution, which provides, No law shall be enacted in this State limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person. ATLA argues that because at common law misuse was a defense only if found to be the sole proximate cause of injury, applying comparative fault principles to reduce damages when the misuse is only a concurrent cause reduces the recovery and abrogates plaintiff's common-law right of action, thus violating article 18, section 6 of the Arizona Constitution. [6] As ATLA recognizes, this argument also implicates the constitutionality of UCATA's abolition of joint-and-several liability, accomplished by adoption of A.R.S. § 12-2506 in 1987. Under the common-law rule of joint-and-several liability, a plaintiff could recover all damages from any tortfeasor whose fault contributed to the injury's occurrence. See Holtz v. Holder, 101 Ariz. 247, 251, 418 P.2d 584, 588 (1966). Under the present UCATA, however, defendants whose fault contributed to the accident are liable for only the share of damages proportionate to their causal contribution to the injury. See A.R.S. § 12-2506. If changing the misuse defense from an all-or-nothing to a comparative system runs afoul of article 2, section 31 and the corresponding language in article 18, section 6 then, a fortiori, the change from joint-and-several to several liability must also be prohibited by the non-limitation language of the two constitutional provisions. [7] Indeed, ATLA urges us to hold both statutes  A.R.S. §§ 12-2505 and 12-2506  unconstitutional. See ATLA Supplemental Brief at 10-13. Until now, our cases and those from the court of appeals have skirted these issues. In Hall, for instance, we upheld the comparative negligence statute, § 12-2505, against an assertion that it violated article 18, section 5. We did not address the limitation of damages issue. 149 Ariz. at 136-37, 717 P.2d at 440-41. In Dietz, we upheld the institution of several liability and the abolition of the joint-and-several principle against constitutional attack because the case involved only the plaintiff's recovery against an employer immune under the workers' compensation law; we did not decide whether the abolition of joint liability in itself limited damages in violation of article 2, section 31 because the issue had not been briefed or argued. 169 Ariz. at 511, 821 P.2d at 172. [8] In this case, on the other hand, the question of misuse has been briefed and argued, and amici representing both plaintiffs' and defense bars filed briefs and participated in oral argument. [9] We do not believe that the prohibition against damage limitations is violated by making concurrent misuse a comparative rather than absolute defense. Like instituting a several-only system of liability, the change essentially regulates responsibility for cause rather than limits the damages recoverable. The recovery of those damages caused by the fault of any causal contributor is not limited by either statutory provision; the effect is only to limit each defendant's liability to the damages resulting from that defendant's conduct. Cf. Aitken v. Industrial Comm'n, 183 Ariz. 387, 904 P.2d 456 (1995) (workers' compensation carrier's lien may be reduced by share of fault attributable to employer). We do not believe our state constitution forbids this. In fact, the text of article 2, section 31 would seem to provide for this result: No law shall be enacted in this state limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person. (Emphasis added.) [10] Pragmatically, it is true that § 12-2505 will affect recovery and, in some cases, reduce the amount of recovery from what it would have been when concurrent-cause misuse was not a defense. [11] In some cases, the practical effect may be the opposite, particularly in assumption of risk cases. But the constitutional provision has never been considered a guarantee of a particular amount of recovery. We long ago held that our constitution permits regulations effectively reducing a plaintiff's recovery. Compare Ruth, 107 Ariz. at 576, 490 P.2d at 832 (upholding validity of the statute giving the Industrial Commission a lien on the amount recovered by an injured worker exercising the option to sue a third-party tortfeasor), and Church v. Rawson Drug & Sundry Co., 173 Ariz. 342, 347, 842 P.2d 1355, 1360 (App. 1992), with Kilpatrick v. Superior Court, 105 Ariz. 413, 466 P.2d 18 (1970) (invalidating under article 2, section 31 a statute limiting the liability of an employee for injury inflicted on a co-employee to the amount allowed by compensation benefits). In Dietz, we upheld the constitutionality of a statutory application that permitted the defendants to name an immune employer as a non-party at fault, even though such construction effectively reduced the plaintiff's recovery from the other defendants. 169 Ariz. at 510-11, 821 P.2d at 171-72. Finally, in Smith v. Myers, we recently held that the periodic payment statute, A.R.S. §§ 12-581 to 12-594, was unconstitutional because a defendant found liable in a particular amount was effectively permitted to reduce that liability by adopting the statutory periodic payment system, thus reducing the plaintiff's damage recovery to an amount less than the damages awarded as a result of that defendant's conduct. 181 Ariz. 11, 887 P.2d 541 (1994). The question in this case is different: Can the legislature regulate a tort action even though such regulation may  and in a few cases no doubt will  adversely affect the computation of damages that the plaintiff recovers? To answer in the negative is to exclude the legislature from any meaningful enactment because almost any statute dealing with tort actions will affect the amount or potential of recovery. [12] But the legislature has a constitutional role [in tort law] and may regulate, so long as it does not abrogate. Hazine v. Montgomery Elevator Co., 176 Ariz. 340, 346, 861 P.2d 625, 631 (1993) (Feldman, C.J., specially concurring); see also Boswell v. Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., 152 Ariz. 9, 19 n. 22, 730 P.2d 186, 196 n. 22 (1986). We go only so far as to state the following: neither article 2, section 31 nor article 18, section 6 of our constitution is offended by the imposition of a statutory regime that recognizes defenses existing at common law and subjects them to a comparative fault analysis, thereby limiting each defendant's liability to the amount of damages attributable to that defendant's causal contribution. Thus, both the change in the misuse statute and the abolition of joint-and-several liability pass constitutional muster.