Opinion ID: 2633521
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Successive Tortfeasor Liability Arises from Separate and Causally-Distinct Injuries Caused by the Original Tortfeasor

Text: {11} In New Mexico, when concurrent tortfeasors negligently cause a single, indivisible injury, the general rule is that each tortfeasor is severally responsible for its own percentage of comparative fault for that injury. See NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1(A) (1987); Bartlett v. N.M. Welding Supply, Inc., 98 N.M. 152, 158, 646 P.2d 579, 585 (Ct.App.1982), superseded in part on other grounds by § 41-3A-1. Under several liability, fault is compared among concurrent tortfeasors, limiting the liability of each to the dollar amount that is equal to the ratio of each concurrent tortfeasor's comparative responsibility for the single, indivisible injury. See § 41-3A-1(B). While several liability is the majority rule, however, certain narrow exceptions still allow for joint and several liability. See § 41-3A-1(C). Under the theory of joint and several liability, each tortfeasor is liable for the entire injury, regardless of proportional fault, leaving it to the defendants to sort out among themselves individual responsibility based on theories of proportional indemnification or contribution. See NMSA 1978, § 41-3-2 (1987) (joint and several liability produces a right of contribution); In re Consol. Vista Hills Retaining Wall Litig., 119 N.M. 542, 552-53, 893 P.2d 438, 448-49 (1995) (adopting proportional indemnification only when contribution or some other form of proration of fault among tortfeasors is not available). {12} Whereas comparative fault and several liability apply when concurrent tortfeasors cause a single, indivisible injury, our analysis shifts when successive tortfeasors cause separate divisible injuries. Under successive tortfeasor liability, a first injury is caused by an original tortfeasor. That injury then causally leads to a second distinct injury, or a distinct enhancement of the first injury, caused by a successive tortfeasor (hereafter distinguished as the second injury or the enhanced injury). See Lujan, 120 N.M. at 426, 902 P.2d at 1029; Occhialino, supra, 20. {13} As an exception to the general rule of several liability, the successive tortfeasor doctrine imposes joint and several liability on the original tortfeasor for the full extent of both injuries, those caused by both the original tortfeasor and the successive tortfeasor. Lujan, 120 N.M. at 426, 902 P.2d at 1029. The original tortfeasor is responsible for both injuries because it is foreseeable as a matter of law that the original injury, such as that suffered from a car accident, may lead to a causally-distinct additional injury, such as when the original injury requires subsequent medical treatment, negligently administered at a hospital. Id. The successive tortfeasor is only responsible for the second injury or for the distinct enhancement of the first injury. See Lewis ex rel. Lewis v. Samson, 2001-NMSC-035, ¶ 34, 131 N.M. 317, 35 P.3d 972 ( Lewis II ). {14} Importantly, because successive tortfeasor liability is an exception to the general rule of several liability among concurrent tortfeasors, the doctrine is limited to a narrow class of cases, in which a plaintiff can show more than one distinct injury successively caused by more than one tortfeasor. Lewis II, 2001-NMSC-035, ¶ 32, 131 N.M. 317, 35 P.3d 972; see also Lujan, 120 N.M. at 425-26, 902 P.2d at 1028-29. See generally RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: APPORTIONMENT OF LIABILITY § 26 (2000); RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS § 457 (1965). As a condition to obtaining joint and several liability of the original tortfeasor for both injuries, a plaintiff must show that the original injury and the subsequent enhancement of that injury [are] separate and causally-distinct injuries. Lujan, 120 N.M. at 426, 902 P.2d at 1028 (emphasis added). If these elements cannot be shown, then joint and several liability does not obtain. {15} The limiting requirement of causally-distinct injuries can be traced back to early discussions of successive tortfeasor liability in New Mexico. See Occhialino, supra, 20-23. Prior to New Mexico's adoption of several liability and comparative fault, our caselaw consistently distinguished between successive and concurrent tortfeasors, noting that successive tortfeasor liability involved negligent acts that are not concurrent, but one succeeds the other by an appreciable interval. Id. at 21 (citing Lucero v. Harshey, 50 N.M. 1, 5, 165 P.2d 587, 589 (1946)). This temporal distinction between the negligent acts was later dropped in favor of a distinction based on an original injury followed by a successive, enhanced injury. The key to the distinction is that the original injury is caused by the negligence of the original tortfeasor, which is then followed by a second or enhanced injury caused by the second tortfeasor. Id. at 21-25. This Court has consistently held, even after the passage of the Several Liability Act in 1987, that for successive tortfeasor liability to apply, two distinct injuries must exist. Id. at 23-28; Lewis II, 2001-NMSC-035, ¶ 32, 131 N.M. 317, 35 P.3d 972; Lujan, 120 N.M. at 426-27, 902 P.2d at 1029-30. Thus, under the law of this state only when these elements are foundnegligence, causation, and a distinct original injurymay the original tortfeasor be held jointly and severally responsible for the subsequent or enhanced injury as well. See Lujan, 120 N.M. at 426, 902 P.2d at 1029; see also RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS, supra, § 457 cmt. a (stating plaintiff must show the original tortfeasor's negligence was the legal cause of bodily harm for which, even if nothing more were suffered, the other could recover damages).