Opinion ID: 1718306
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Persons Injured by Tort Feasors

Text: The classification of those injured by tort-feasors is also constitutionally justified. The distinction between those injured by tort-feasors and injured parties generally is clear-where persons are injured by tort-feasors, the ultimate legal responsibility for the injuries sustained rests with the tort-feasor and not the injured party. Therefore, those injured by tort-feasors are substantially different from other injured parties. The public policy underlying the statute is that doctors, nurses, and hospitals are intended to be compensated by any judgment or settlement reached as compensation for the injuries sustained. It has been decided by the Legislature, for the policy reasons stated above, that doctors, nurses, and hospitals should be compensated when funds are available from the responsible party. It is reasonable to ensure that when an injured party seeks damages based upon the cost of medical services necessitated by an injury, the compensation for those services should be directed toward the providers of the services. This also serves the public interest through the financial solvency of the doctors, nurses, and hospitals, as detailed above. We determine that Bergan's assignment of error has merit, as § 52-401 is not special legislation in allowing hospitals, doctors, and nurses to perfect a lien not allowed to other creditors, nor in limiting that lien to debtors who have been injured by tortfeasors. Haven has not argued that the statute is special legislation in providing doctors, hospitals, and nurses an exception from the common fund doctrine not available to other creditors, and we do not consider that question.