Court Opinion

ID: 9717410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:03:00.292464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:53.102256
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring specially.
I agree with the answers to questions 1 and 3 as expressed by the majority opinion. Insofar as the answer to question 2 is concerned, it appears we are to assume, for purposes of the question, that the evidence will clearly distinguish between plaintiff Thomas J. Day’s “accident producing fault” and “injury enhancing fault.” Presumably the question also implies that plaintiff requested damages for only the “enhanced” injuries and not those injuries which would have been suffered regardless of the defective product. Assuming such distinctions are in fact made, and that there is no overlap between plaintiffs “accident producing fault” and plaintiffs “injury enhancing fault,” I would conclude that only the “injury enhancing fault” should be considered for the purpose of reducing or, as the case may be, defeating plaintiffs recovery for his enhanced injuries. If, of course, the distinctions cannot be supported by the evidence I agree with the majority opinion that the determination should include both plaintiffs “accident producing fault” and “injury enhancing fault.”
ERICKSTAD, C.J., concurs.