Court Opinion

ID: 9490185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 13:35:35.030511+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:56.686451
License: Public Domain

DAVID A. NELSON, Circuit Judge,
concurring.
I fully concur in Judge Kennedy’s opinion and in the remand. The jury having been *1233-1247presented with a special verdict form asking whether Dr. Carnesale was negligent, and the jury having been instructed (among other things) to answer this question “no” if it found in favor of Dr. Carnesale on the issue of proximate cause, we are left with no choice but to send the case back.
I write separately to note that a remand might not have been necessary if the special verdict form had provided for separate findings on negligence and causation, and if the jury had been instructed not to answer the causation question unless it found Dr. Carne-sale negligent. Had the jury answered the first question “no” under these circumstances, there would have been no need for a remand.
We were told at oral argument that it is customary in Tennessee to conflate the issues of negligence and proximate cause and to label a negligent defendant non-negligent if his negligence was not the proximate cause of the defendant’s injury. If such a custom exists, I hope that it will be revisited. The practice is analytically untidy, and, as this case demonstrates, it can lead to results that may be unfortunate.