Court Opinion

ID: 9502970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 19:36:15.500618+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:16.137987
License: Public Domain

MARKMAN, J.
(concurring). I concur in the majority opinion with the exception of the majority’s statement that “we will [not] extend a statute by implication to abrogate established rules of common law.” Ante at 11. I do believe that a statute may by implication abrogate established rules of common law. That is, the Legislature does not have to explicitly state that it is abrogating a common-law right in order for it to abrogate a common-law right. The Legislature’s intent to abrogate the common law may be sufficiently clear without its having to explicitly state that this is its intent. A legislative body need not provide a running commentary of the effect of its actions on the common law when its actions will admit of only the most obvious interpretation. The statement is unnecessary to the opinion, and no injury would be done to the opinion were it not there. I join the majority because I believe the Legislature has not, either expressly or implicitly, abrogated the common-law setoff rule in the context of joint and several liability medical malpractice cases.